Dzung Ngoc Tu, 25, a Cornell University student, murdered by Ross on May 12, 1981.
Paula Perrera, 16, of Wallkill, N.Y., murdered by Ross in March 1982.
Tammy Williams, 17, of Brooklyn, Conn. murdered by Ross on Jan. 5, 1982.
Debra Smith Taylor, 23, of Griswold, murdered by Ross on June 15, 1982.
Robin Stavinksy, 19, of Norwich, murdered by Ross in November 1983.
April Brunias, 14, of Griswold, murdered by Ross on April 22, 1984.
Leslie Shelley, 14, of Griswold, murdered by Ross on April 22, 1984.
Wendy Baribeault, 17, of Griswold, murdered by Ross on June 13, 1984.

Summary:
On Thanksgiving Day, 1983, Ross accosted nineteen year old Robyn S. on the grounds of a State Hospital in Norwich. He forcefully pulled Robyn S. into a wooded area and ordered her to remove her clothing. He then sexually assaulted her and, after ordering her to turn over on her stomach, strangled her. Before leaving, he covered her body with leaves.

On June 13, 1984, Ross accosted seventeen year old Wendy B. as she was walking along Route 12 in Lisbon. After a short conversation, he pulled Wendy B. over a stone wall, forcing her to go with him into a wooded area that led to an open field. There he sexually assaulted her, forced her to turn over on her stomach, and then strangled her.

On Easter Sunday, 1984, Ross picked up fourteen year old April B. and fourteen year old Leslie S., who were hitchhiking on Route 138. Once the girls had entered his car, he drove them over their protests past their intended destination. When April B. tried to force the defendant to stop the car by threatening him with a knife, he disarmed her and continued into Rhode Island. At Beach Pond, he parked his car and bound both girls hand and foot. He then untied April B.'s feet and forced her to walk a short distance from his car, where he assaulted her sexually, turned her over on her stomach and strangled her. Returning to the car, the defendant killed Leslie S. without sexually assaulting her. He then placed the bodies of both girls in his car and drove back to Preston, Connecticut, where he deposited their bodies in a culvert.

Ross, a Cornell University graduate who studied economics, confessed to the murder of all four women and four others during the same time period. At his trial, the defendant did not deny having committed the kidnappings, rapes, and murders, and asserted an insanity defense.

1987, Ross was convicted for the murders of four of the eight women he confessed to killing. It took the jury 86 minutes of deliberations to convict him and only four hours to decide on his punishment. He was the first person executed in Connecticut since May 17, 1960, when Joseph "Mad Dog" Taborsky was electrocuted for a spree of slayings.

SOMERS -- Serial killer Michael Bruce Ross was pronounced dead at 2:25 a.m. today, the first convict executed in New England in 45 years.

In the end, the man described as both monster and manipulator controlled his own fate. He had until 2:01 to call off the execution by saying he wanted to pursue more appeals. He did not, and the series of three lethal drugs coursed through his veins.
Osborn Correctional Institution Warden Christine Whidden announced Ross' death from a podium at 2:28.

Shortly afterward, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Ross alone is responsible for his fate.
"Today is a day no one truly looked forward to - but then no one looked forward to the brutal, heinous deaths of those eight young girls," Rell said. "I hope that there is at least some measure of relief and closure for their families."
Ross' body was removed from the prison by Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, the state's chief medical examiner, and two technicians to do an autopsy.

The ranks of death penalty opponents had swelled to nearly 300 as they marched through the chilled air to the driveway of the prison where Ross was executed. Candlelight highlighted expressions that ranged from tearful to stoic as they learned of Ross' death by word of mouth rippling through the crowd.
Jacob Grossouw, 16 of Enfield, said he was shocked. "I don't know how to feel. I can't believe they just killed a man," he said.

Several family members of Ross' victims, however, said they were grateful for the execution, and afterward took turns at the podium saying so.
Edwin Shelley, father of 14-year-old victim Leslie Shelley, said, "We have waited 21 years for justice, and I would like to thank the jury in Bridgeport, the jury in New London and, finally, the State of Connecticut for finally giving us the justice that our children are due."
Victim Robin Stavinsky's stepmother, Joan Stavinsky, said she heard the announcement on television about 2:30 a.m. at her home.
"I think I'm a little bit numb," Stavinsky said. "It just doesn't seem real. You just can't set aside 22 years of this in one instant."

Others were more angry than relieved.
"I thought I would feel closure, but I felt anger, just watching him lay there and sleep, after what he did to these women, but I'm sure I will feel some closure soon," said Debbie Dupuis, Robin Stavinsky's sister.
Rell said the execution ends what has been "a protracted ordeal for the entire state, none more so than for the families of the victims, who have suffered for years and still grieve for their lost daughters. It is time to move forward with compassion for all the families who have lost loved ones. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the grief felt by the family of Michael Ross."

Media witnesses described what appeared to be a shudder, a gasp for air and an otherwise motionless death. Ross, his wrists and fingers wrapped in gauze, said nothing and looked at no one, the witnesses said.
Ross said "No, thank you," when asked if he wished to make a final statement, said Kenton Robinson, an editor at the New London Day.

Shelley Sindland of Fox-61 TV said she heard one female witness, hidden from Sindland by a curtain separating the media from the families of Ross' victims, mockingly say, "Oh, are you in pain?" when Ross seemed to gasp. Sindland said she heard another man utter, "It's too peaceful."

Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano said: "Today, with the execution of Michael Ross, there are no winners. The murderous actions he took so many years ago continue to affect his victims' families to this very day. ... It is time to forget Michael Ross, but we should never forget about his victims and we should always embrace their families. Tonight my heart and prayers go out to them. I hope they finally feel a sense of justice."

Ross' lawyer, T.R. Paulding, stressed that Ross' decision "to stop the continuing torture to the families of his victims was a difficult one. It resulted over a period of time, and is directly linked to Michael's evolving spirituality, compassion and awareness. It was a decision that required courage. In the last few months that courage carried him through the constant urgings of those who would have him change his mind. He was stripped of his dignity through endless court proceedings. In the end, Mr. Ross maintained his dignity."

But outside the prison walls, a game of legal brinkmanship spanning three federal courts from Connecticut to Washington, D.C., played out until 11 p.m., when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected efforts by two defense lawyers to halt the execution.

Ross was a 25-year-old insurance agent in June 1984 when he confessed to kidnapping, raping and killing young women over a three-year period. His victims ranged in age from 14 to 25. "They were dead as soon as I saw them," he said in a 1994 interview.

Jennifer Tabor said she never thought she would be able to witness the execution of the man who killed her 19-year-old stepsister, Stavinsky. Tabor was 12 at the time of the murder, and hatched a plan in which she would stand outside the gates of the prison on the morning of Ross' death.
"I always pictured myself out there with the rest of the people, holding a big sign, in favor of his death," Tabor said. "I always promised Robin I would be there on that day."

Instead, Tabor arrived in Somers Thursday night as a witness and with her siblings, Debbie Dupuis and David Riquier, represented the second generation of those affected by the murders. They stood in for parents too weary from years of grief to watch the last chapter of their ordeal.

Tabor issued a statement that was a mix of compassion and relief.
"We feel sorrow for the Ross family and respect their grief at losing a family member," she said. "We know that the sadness of losing Robin will always remain, but now the anger caused by Michael Ross' crimes can begin to fade into a safe place. ... We hope the words, thoughts and life of Michael Ross will become a faint memory and the notoriety that surrounded him will finally end."

Before leaving her home in Columbia with her siblings for the ride to Somers, Tabor said she grabbed a photograph of Robin so she could have it with her in the room where she watched the execution.
"I just wanted to have it with me, have her with me," Tabor said.
As they drove up Shaker Road toward the prison, Tabor said, she was amazed at the groups of police officers gathered at every intersection.
"There were cops everywhere," she said. The dozens of checkpoints they went through and a long line of orange traffic cones that glowed from her vehicle's headlights were "intimidating," she said.
When they arrived at the "safe house" where correction officials had them wait before going to the prison, Tabor saw about 20 people gathered inside. She recognized some faces from court hearings she attended years ago. Others were strangers, she said.
"It was real quiet," she said. "It was like a dream. It didn't seem real."

For many, the past five months have seemed similarly surreal.
Ross on Oct. 6 told New London Superior Court Judge Patrick Clifford he wanted to waive further appeals and proceed to his execution. Clifford, after questioning Ross at length about his knowledge of appeals still open to him, set Jan. 26 as the execution date.

Before coming into court in October, Ross fired his public defenders and hired Paulding, who had been his standby counsel in the mid-1990s when Ross sought a death sentence rather than undergo a second penalty phase and revisit the gruesome details of his crimes. Ross has said since 1994 that he wanted to spare the families of his victims, and himself, from that torment.

The public defenders who had represented Ross for nearly 17 years fought to intervene on his behalf and halt the execution. What followed was a flurry of legal challenges and appeals that ended only hours before Ross was scheduled to die in late January. And in a bizarre twist worthy of a novel, it was Paulding who called off the execution after a searing telephone conference with a federal judge who threatened his law license and questioned whether Ross was really driven by despair over years of segregated confinement.

Ross' execution today follows another round of competency hearings, appeals and last-minute legal machinations by lawyers seeking to halt the execution. Attorney Diane Polan represented Ross' sister, Donna Dunham, in efforts to intervene on behalf of her brother. Antonio Ponvert III sought a temporary restraining order to stop the execution on behalf of inmates susceptible to "suicide contagion" if Ross was allowed to willingly go to his death.

Thursday's legal drama began around 10:30 a.m., when Droney refused to grant a temporary restraining order and rejected Dunham's bid to intervene. Her lawyer and Ponvert appealed to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan. Those appeals were heard at 2:30 p.m., using an elaborate network of video relays connecting three locales: the appeals court in Manhattan, a small conference room equipped with monitors at the Hartford federal courthouse and a similar room in a federal court in Vermont, where Appellate Judge Peter W. Hall resides.

The 2nd Circuit rejected both appeals about 5:30 p.m. Appeals soon followed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and all parties involved in the execution countdown remained on tenterhooks until just after 11 p.m.

Visits consumed most of Ross' last day. He awoke about 5:45 a.m. and had a breakfast of oatmeal and grapefruit, Department of Correction spokesman Brian Garnett said. Ross watched television and read newspapers until 8:10 a.m., when he was moved to the execution holding cell. It resembles his other open-barred cell at the old death row at Osborn Correction Institution, except that it is encased in Plexiglas, with a circle of holes drilled midway down the front of the door so Ross could communicate back and forth with visitors.

Where formerly Ross could hold hands with visitors, now he could not. Only priests were allowed physical contact, necessary so they could give him the Holy Eucharist, which Ross received at 9 a.m. later he received last rites.

Butler said he and Ross joked Thursday morning about the "Hannibal Lecter death cell," a reference to the cannibal psychiatrist in the thriller movie "Silence of the Lambs."
Ross lunched on a cheeseburger and hash browns, and at 3 p.m. chose to have as his last meal the same thing all the other inmates at Osborn would be eating for dinner - turkey a la king with rice, mixed vegetables, white bread, fruits and a beverage.

As he ate, protesters were on the last leg of their five-day, 30-mile march from Hartford.
Jim Whitten, 32 of Suffield, and Christa Elkovich, 26 of Suffield, were among those showing their support.
"Long story short, killing is wrong in any form," Elkovich said.
Rachel Lawler, 20 and a student at St. Michael's College in Vermont, was in the middle of final exams but said she felt compelled to come down and show her opposition to the death penalty.
"It's hard to believe it's really happening," she said. "It's hard to believe Connecticut is murdering someone."

Among the protesters who walked two abreast toward the prison was attorney Thomas J. Ullmann, head of public defenders in New Haven County. Ullmann last year prevailed in his defense of Jonathan Mills, a multiple murderer who had faced the death penalty but was instead sentenced by a jury to life without parole in prison. Surrounded by somber protesters, Ullmann said people still could not believe it was happening.
"It's just that they're shocked this is really happening. To me, as a human being, I feel I have an obligation to be here and help out. We know we're on the right side of this issue. To say that it's the law - well, so was slavery at one time. This is another human rights issue and eventually, we will prevail."

Elizabeth Brancato, 58, of Torrington, whose mother was murdered 26 years ago, walked the entire length of the five-day march. She felt that murder victims' families who oppose capital punishment had to be represented. She said she sees the execution as state-sponsored homicide.
"It feels like we're all doing it and in fact we are all doing it. It's not the state as some faceless entity. The state is us. Maybe that's why I've been doing this - to feel less a part of it."

The last execution in New England occurred in Connecticut on May 17, 1960, when Joseph "Mad Dog" Taborsky was electrocuted for a series of execution-style robberies and murders. Like Ross, Taborsky waived his appeals and opted to be executed.

Victim Wendy Baribeault's cousin, Robert Baribeault III, expressed relief that Ross was finally being put to death. But he stressed that his cousin's death will always be a part of his family's life.
"His death will give us some closure, but will never bring back the lives he has taken," Baribeault said. "There will always be an open wound in the hearts of the families and friends who knew and love these young ladies. To Michael Ross, may you rot in hell."

ENFIELD, Conn. (Reuters) - Connecticut prison officials put serial killer Michael Ross to death by lethal injection on Friday in the first execution in liberal-minded New England in 45 years.
State officials said that shortly after 2 a.m. EST (0600 GMT), Ross was administered a chemical cocktail at the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut. The drugs sedated him, paralyzed his muscles, and stopped his heart.

Ross, who admitted killing eight women in the 1980s, was pronounced dead at 2:25 a.m. EST (0625 GMT), a senior Connecticut correctional official said.
Ross made no statement before his death.

Witness Gerry Brooks, from Connecticut NBC affiliate WVIT TV, said that as Ross received the intravenous fluids "there was gasp and there was a shudder and he did not move again."
Another witness said she heard from the area where the victims' families viewed the execution a man's voice saying "it's too peaceful" as the lethal dose was administered.

Edwin Shelley, father of Leslie Shelley who was murdered by Ross in 1984, said: "We have waited 21 years for justice."
Chris Morano, Connecticut's chief state's attorney, said, "It's time to forget about Michael Ross. But we should never forget about his victims and we should always remember and embrace their families."

Although Ross said he was personally opposed to the death penalty, he wanted his execution to serve as closure for his victims' families and last year he waived all remaining appeals.
For his last meal, Ross ate the prison's meal of the day, which was turkey a la king with rice, mixed vegetables, white bread, fruit and a beverage.

Between 200 and 300 people, many praying aloud, marched to Osborn from a staging area about a mile away in protest at the execution.
Ross was originally set to die in January, but legal appeals delayed his execution several times.
His death sparked much public debate in the northeast United States, where executions are rare. Most executions in America take place in southern states.
Death penalty foes around New England were frustrated by Ross' insistence on being executed, making him what capital punishment experts call a "volunteer."

Michael Bruce Ross (July 26, 1959 – May 13, 2005) was an American serial killer, also known as The Roadside Strangler. In 2005, he was executed by the state of Connecticut, making it the first execution in Connecticut (and the whole of New England) since 1960.

Early life

Ross was born in Putnam, Connecticut to Patricia Hilda Laine and Dan Graeme Ross.[1] The oldest of four children, having two younger sisters and a younger brother, he grew up on a chicken farm in Brooklyn, Connecticut. Ross' home life was extremely dysfunctional; his mother, who had abandoned the family at least once and had been institutionalized, beat all four of her children, saving the worst for him.[2] Some family and friends have suggested that he was also molested by his teenaged uncle, who committed suicide when Ross was six.[3]

Ross was a bright boy who performed well in school. He would later attend Cornell University, study agricultural economics, and become an insurance salesman. He began stalking women in his sophomore year of college. In his senior year, he committed his first rape; his first murder followed soon after.

Crime spree

Between 1981 and 1984, Ross murdered eight girls and women aged between 14 and 25 in Connecticut and New York.[5]

Of his eight murder victims, seven were also raped. Ross also was alleged to have raped, but not killed a twenty-one-year old named Vivian Dobson in 1983.

Plainfield police rejected the possibility that Ross had been Vivian Dobson's rapist. They did not press charges and Ross made no confession.

Ross confessed to all of the eight murders, and he was convicted for the last four of them. He was sentenced to death on July 6, 1987, and spent the next 18 years on death row. During that time, he met his fiancée, Susan Powers, of Oklahoma. Powers broke up with Ross in 2003 but still visited him until his death. He became a devout Catholic after his arrest in 1984, meeting regularly with two priests through the years and praying the rosary each morning. Ross met Cornell University graduate and pastoral adviser Kathy Yeager, who visited him from 1997 until 2005. According to Yeager, Ross had accomplishments, such as translating Braille, acting as a "big brother" to other inmates, and sponsoring an impoverished child from the Dominican Republic.[6]

Execution

Though he opposed the death penalty, Ross strongly supported his own death sentence in the last year of his life, saying that he wanted to spare his victims' families any more pain. According to Yeager, Ross believed that he had been "forgiven by God" and that he would be going to "a better place" once executed. She said, "He's not being punished. He's moving on to life eternal. That's what is ironic about the death penalty. He's looking forward to the peace."[6] Yeager also said that Ross had come to believe there was no way his death sentences would be commuted without forcing the victims' families to suffer through more legal hearings; and that he knew his life would be meaningful, even behind bars: "He's had a horrible life, and he's wanted to do good."[6]

In spite of this, an hour before the execution was to take place in the early hours of January 26, 2005, Ross' lawyer, acting on behalf of Ross' father, obtained a two-day stay of execution. Ross was then scheduled to die by lethal injection on January 29, 2005, at 2:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. However, earlier in the day, the execution was again postponed because of doubts that Ross was mentally competent; having fought against his death sentence for 17 years, he suddenly waived his right to appeal. His attorney claimed that Ross was incompetent to waive appeals, as he was suffering from death row syndrome.

Vivian Dobson, whom Ross was alleged to have raped, became a vocal opponent of the death penalty in an effort to save Ross' life.
In his final days, Ross became an oblate, or associate, of the Benedictine Grange, a Roman Catholic monastic community in West Redding, Connecticut.

Ross was executed by lethal injection on May 13, 2005, at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut. He was 45 years old. Ross did not request a special last meal before facing his execution, thereby dining on the regular prison meal of the day: turkey à la king with rice, mixed vegetables, white bread, fruit, and a beverage.[7] When asked if he would like to make a last statement, he said, without opening his eyes, "No, thank you." Ross was pronounced dead at 2:25 a.m. His remains were buried at the Benedictine Grange Cemetery in Redding, Connecticut.

After the execution, Dr. Stuart Grassian, a psychiatrist who had argued that Ross was not competent to waive appeal, received a letter from Ross dated May 10, 2005, which read "Check, and mate. You never had a chance!"[8]

Ross' execution was the first in Connecticut (and in all of New England) since 1960. It was also the first execution in Connecticut administered by lethal injection. As of 2009, Ross is the most recent inmate executed in Connecticut, although the state's death row houses 10 convicted murderers who are in various stages of legal appeals.

Order of execution

Michael Bruce Ross' was the: first execution in Connecticut in 2005; first execution in Connecticut since 1976; 22nd execution in the United States in 2005; and 966th execution in the United States since 1976.[9]

At 2:25 a.m. today, Ivy League killer Michael Ross — who fought for years to hasten his own death — became the first person to be executed in New England in 45 years.
"The execution of Michael Bruce Ross has been carried out . . . The death occurred at 2:25 a.m.," Warden Christine Whidden said shortly after Ross was pronounced dead at the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Conn.
State officials said Ross was administered a chemical cocktail that sedated him, paralyzed his muscles and stopped his heart.

Impassive to the end, Ross refused to request a special last meal before facing his executioner, dining on the same plate of turkey à la king, rice, mixed vegetables and fruit served to the rest of the facility's 18,000 inmates.

Ross, a Cornell University graduate who studied economics, was put to death by lethal injection for the rapes and murders of four women in the early 1980s.
He had also confessed to the killings and rapes of four other women in the same period.

Since 1998, Ross had stubbornly refused to appeal his death sentence. But relatives, public defenders and death-penalty foes lodged numerous challenges, including one that delayed a scheduled execution in January.
A judge yesterday denied the last of the appeals filed on Ross' behalf — including one by his sister.
Ross spent his last evening meeting with family, friends and his attorneys inside a holding cell adjacent to the state's lethal-injection chamber.
Among his possessions was a Bible, a book of Bible verses and some candy, prison officials said.

Ross said he wanted to end the appeals process, which has gone on since his conviction in 1987, because he hoped to spare the families of his victims any more pain.
"I owe these people. I killed their daughters. If I could stop the pain, I have to do that. This is my right," the former insurance agent said last year. "I don't think there's anything crazy or incompetent about that."

As they awaited the execution yesterday, the victims' families differed on whether Ross' death would bring them closure.
"It's going to be nice to come home and realize that the case is finished and that he has received his just rewards," said Edwin Shelley, whose daughter Leslie was 14 when she became Ross' seventh victim. "I think I will be very relaxed and at ease with myself."

Joan Stavinsky, the stepmother of 19-year-old victim Robin Stavinsky, told The Post she was unsure if Ross' death would ease the minds of her family.
"I have no idea what it's going to mean in the big picture," she said. "It isn't going to be bring Robin back, that's for sure."

Ross was the first person executed in Connecticut since May 17, 1960, when Joseph "Mad Dog" Taborsky was electrocuted for a spree of slayings.
The creepy, mild-mannered Ross began his murderous orgy in 1981, when he killed Dzung Ngoc Tu, a fellow Cornell student. He later admitted to strangling her and dumping her body in a gorge.
Over the next three years, he killed seven more times. He was captured in 1985 after a witness to one of the abductions told cops the killer drove a blue car. Ross, who drove a blue Toyota, confessed under interrogation.

"Connecticut Carries Out Its First Execution in 45 Years," by William Yardley and Stacey Stowe. (Published: May 13, 2005)

About 300 death penalty opponents held vigil in the cold and dark outside the rural complex of state prisons where a warden led Mr. Ross to the execution chamber and an unidentified executioner began administering a lethal injection into his arm shortly after the scheduled 2:01 a.m. execution time.
"Death occurred at 2:25 a.m. on this day," Christine Whidden, the warden of one of the prisons, Robinson Correctional Institution, announced five minutes afterwards.

Mr. Ross, 45, had sought that fatal moment for nearly a year.
In defiance of public defenders and others who wanted to save him, he chose to forgo further appeals of his death sentence last year. He said he wanted to ease the pain of the families of the eight teenage girls and young women he strangled in the early 1980's. He raped most of his victims.

A graduate of Cornell University and a former life insurance salesman, Mr. Ross convinced judges he was competent, smirked at psychiatrists who said he was suicidal and often seemed exasperated by his inability to reshape his image.
"I am not an animal," he once wrote.
In the final moments before his execution on Friday morning, however, he did not attempt to explain himself. He kept his eyes closed and never looked through the glass at those witnessing his death.

His execution, at Osborn Correctional Institution, atop a grassy slope about a mile from the Massachusetts border, was witnessed by more than 20 people. Nine family members of Mr. Ross's victims witnessed the execution, as did the two detectives who first arrested him and a victims' advocate. They shared the witness room with four people who were there at Mr. Ross's request, as well as five news media witnesses who were allowed to document the event with notepads and pens. Heavy gray curtains separated each group.

Media witnesses said the curtain blocking the execution chamber opened at 2:08 a.m. and revealed Mr. Ross strapped to a padded table, his arms outstretched. Asked if he wanted to make a final statement, he said, "No, thank you."
A warden then placed a call from the chamber that lasted five minutes. It was unclear why the call lasted that long, though the execution procedure required a final check to see whether any stays of execution had been ordered.

Several media witnesses said the injection began at about 2:13, after the warden hung up the phone. They said Mr. Ross clearly reacted to the flow of chemicals.
"He definitely gasped and shuddered," said Shelly Sindland, a reporter for WTIC-TV. She and others said they did not know whether Mr. Ross felt pain

Ms. Sindland noted that a family member near her said aloud sarcastically, "Uh, feeling some pain?"
After the color appeared to fade from Mr. Ross's face, another family member, a man, said, "It was too peaceful."

Family members expressed a range of emotions after witnessing the execution. Some expressed sympathy for Mr. Ross's family, none of whom witnessed the execution.
"I thought I would feel closure but I felt anger just watching him lay there and sleep after what he did to these women," said Debbie Dupuis, the sister of Robin Stavinsky, who Mr. Ross murdered in 1983 when she was 19.

Lan Manh Tu, whose younger sister Dzung Ngoc Tu, 25, was raped and murdered by Mr. Ross in 1981, traveled to Connecticut from Maryland on Thursday for the execution. Mr. Ross was never prosecuted for her murder, though he confessed to it. Mr. Tu was allowed inside the prison but he was not allowed to witness the execution.
"I'm glad that we will never have to hear about him again," Mr. Tu said.
Lera Shelley, whose daughter Leslie was 14 when Mr. Ross strangled her in 1984, said, "My daughter and the other victims finally have the justice they deserve and now they can all rest in peace."

Outside the prison, in the first moments after the execution, the approximately 300 people who had sung hymns and talked quietly became silent.
"I feel regret that this state has just killed somebody," James Russell, 23, a teacher from Longmeadow, Mass., said shortly after the execution was announced. "It's a barbaric act that shouldn't happen in a democratic society."
Death penalty opponents marched outside the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Conn., on Thursday to protest the execution of the serial killer Michael Bruce Ross.

Because of his status as a so-called volunteer, Mr. Ross held the right to change his mind up until the moment of the lethal injection and to say he wanted to appeal.
"All he has to do is say so and the machinery of death will stop," Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said during an afternoon news conference at a prison just down from the prison where Mr. Ross was to die.
The execution had seemed imminent before.

In January, Mr. Ross came within hours of death before his lawyer, T.R. Paulding, unexpectedly requested a delay. Mr. Paulding, who has helped Mr. Ross seek execution, cited a potential conflict of interest after a federal judge threatened earlier that day to suspend his law license for not questioning Mr. Ross's competency more thoroughly.
A new six-day evaluation in April led to another finding of competency and a series of court rulings affirming the finding. One expert said this week that he believed that the execution would go forward because the state effectively has had a legal "dress-rehearsal."
"I think last time cleared a lot of the underbrush out of the way," said Michael A. Mello, a professor at Vermont Law School and a former capital defense lawyer.

Before the execution, on the rural two-lane road that runs past the prison complex here, drivers beeped horns or shouted support or disapproval as they passed clusters of correction officers and state police officers. A line of protesters marched before sundown, their anti-death-penalty banners rippling in the strong spring breeze.
"I'm not here because of Mr. Ross," said David Cruz-Uribe, 41, who teaches math at Trinity College in Hartford. "He's not a nice person. I'm here because I oppose the death penalty."

After midnight, Mr. Cruz-Uribe joined hundreds of protesters marching toward Osborn as temperatures dipped toward the low 40's. He recited the Hail Mary prayer as his fingers worked the beads of a rosary.

Lawyers trying to stop the execution argued in court as late as Thursday afternoon. A motion filed by one of Mr. Ross's sisters claimed his decision to be executed was involuntary because he suffered from a combination of mental disorders and psychological coercion after years of confinement. Another suit claimed that Mr. Ross's "suicide" would "cause suicide contagion" among other inmates.
Both claims were rejected in federal court late in the day. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that Mr. Ross's sister, Donna Dunham, did not have legal standing. In a separate decision, the court said the possible effect of the execution on other prisoners was not clear.
The United States Supreme Court rejected both claims late Thursday night.

Mr. Ross's unlikely case pushed Connecticut toward its 74th execution since it adopted capital punishment in 1893. But it would be the first since the state electrocuted a murderer nicknamed Mad Dog in 1960
While rough edges defined that man, Joseph Taborsky, Mr. Ross was an Ivy League graduate with a sometimes condescending manner and a masterful grasp of the nuances of death penalty law.

He was first arrested on murder charges in 1984, three years after he graduated from Cornell. Six of his victims lived in eastern Connecticut; two lived in New York. He was sentenced to death in 1987 for four of the Connecticut killings.

On Thursday morning, he woke at 5:45 a.m. and "spent part of the morning watching television, reading newspapers," said Brian Garnett, a spokesman for the State Department of Correction.
By 8:10 a.m. he was moved to a holding cell next to what correction officials call "the execution enclosure." He took with him a Bible, a book of Bible verses, a coffee cup and candy. He received communion from a prison chaplain about 9 a.m. and received visits from his lawyer, friends and family, speaking to them through holes in plexiglass covering the cell bars.

His last meal, served at about 3 p.m., was the prison meal of the day.
"That happened to be turkey a la king with rice, mixed vegetables, white bread, fruit and a beverage," Mr. Garnett said.

Mr. Paulding, speaking to reporters after the execution, said his client genuinely wanted to help the families of his victims and had made "a decision that required courage."
"This was not an act of suicide," he said.
"He sought to do what he thought was right," Mr. Paulding added. "He stuck to his principles."

Christopher L. Morano, the chief state's attorney, whose office prosecuted Mr. Ross, said, "It's time to forget about Michael Ross, but we should never forget about his victims."
Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican who declined to grant Mr. Ross a temporary reprieve, said, "Today is a day no one truly looked forward to - but then no one looked forward to the brutal, heinous deaths of those eight young girls. I hope that there is at least some measure of relief and closure for their families."

Theresa C. Lantz, commissioner of the state department of corrections, noted the historic nature of the execution for her department and that it was the state's first by lethal injection.
"We have drilled consistently," she said. "Utilizing every contingency and scenario that we possibly could, 30 times at a minimum."
She said employees involved with the lethal injection had been qualified by a state-licensed physician. All who are participating, she said, "do so voluntarily, confidentially and have full access to counseling and support services if they feel it is needed."

Here are comments from some of those involved in the scheduled execution of serial killer Michael Ross:

"With today's execution of Michael Ross there are no winners. There are no winners. The murderous actions he undertook so many years ago continue their ripple effects to this very day ... And so I say today it's time to forget about Michael Ross, but we should never forget about his victims." - Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano.

____

"After the execution, what will the state of Connecticut have gained from all of this? The answer seems to be that, minimally, the state has secured the proverbial pound of flesh for the crimes of this one outrageously cruel man. But now, what is to be? Has our thirst for this ultimate penalty now been slaked, or do we, the people of Connecticut, continue down this increasingly lonesome road? - Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Flemming Norcott Jr. in his concurrence and dissent from the ruling that cleared the way for the execution.

____

"I wish to make it clear that I do not authorize, endorse concur in or approve of any legal pleadings or petitions filed in any court anywhere in the time remaining between the execution of this affidavit and the moment of my execution unless they are filed by me or attorney T.R. Paulding, Jr." - Ross affidavit.

____

"He stuck to his principles. He didn't let those who fought for their cause sway him." -- Ross' lawyer, T. R. Paulding.

____

"This has been a protracted ordeal for the entire state, none more so than for the families of the victims, who have suffered for years and still grieve for their lost daughters. It is time to move forward with compassion for all the families who have lost loved ones. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the grief felt by the family of Michael Ross. - Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

____

"In accordance with the sentence of capital punishment imposed by the Superior Court of the Judicial District of New London, the execution of Michael Bruce Ross has been carried out in the manner prescribed by the laws of the state of Connecticut," - Christine Whidden, warden of Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers.

____

"The whole thing is just disheartening to me and I think we're going to live to regret this day." -Antonio Ponvert III, attorney for Ross' father, whose last appeal was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

____

"It's going to be nice to come home and realize that the case is finished and that he has received his just rewards. I think I will be very relaxed and at ease with myself." -Edwin Shelley, whose 14-year-old daughter Leslie was killed by Ross in 1984.

____

"I'm sure it's going to be difficult. I have no doubt. Seeing a life being extinguished with such technological sophistication, it's a whole new barbarism." -the Rev. John Giuliani, a priest chosen by Ross to be one of the witnesses.

____

"We feel sorrow for the Ross family and respect their grief at them losing a family member. We know that the sadness of losing Robin will always remain, but now the anger caused by Michael Ross' crimes can begin to fade to a safe place." -Jennifer Tabor, stepsister of Robin Stavinsky, who was killed by Ross in 1983.

____

We wish to have him destroyed. Mr. Ross is a diseased animal that society is well justified to flush down its sewer system." -Lan Manh Tu, brother of Ross' first victim Dzung Ngoc Tu, 25, whose body was found in 1981 in a gorge at Cornell University.

____

"Her youngest brother is about to graduate from adult ed later this month, that's the event we're concentrating on. We'll definitely go to that." -Raymond Roode, stepfather of April Brunais, on why her family decided not to attend the execution.

____

"Capital punishment will be wrong long after Michael Ross and it was wrong long before him." - Robert Nave, executive director of the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty.

____

"May the ending of Michael Ross' life be the beginning of a renewed determined and sustained movement to abolish capital punishment in Connecticut." -The Rev. Stephen J. Sidorak Jr., executive director of the Christian Conference of Connecticut.

____

"Knowing that they were our age, knowing that he killed and raped them and stuff I'm putting myself in their shoes." -Lauren Mashiak, a 17-year-old junior at Somers High, who came out to the prison to support the execution.

____

"Perhaps finally, there is some satisfaction in having an end, a fitting end, a just result, when there can be no satisfaction either in revenge or vengeance or certainly the crime itself...Today we have shown our criminal justice works, it can reach closure and it can impose a lawful penalty after a lawful conviction and lawfully impose that punishment." _State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Following a flurry of 11th-hour appeals, serial killer Michael Ross was executed by lethal injection early today at the Connecticut state prison in Somers.
Ross, 45, who admitted that he murdered eight girls and young women in Connecticut and New York in the 1980s, became the first person executed in New England since 1960.
Ross, who had demanded to be put to death, received a lethal combination of three drugs as witnesses watched from an adjoining room at the Osborn Correctional Institution. Ross died at 2:25 a.m., prison officials said.

The witnesses included relatives of the victims, a priest, and a college classmate of Ross's. Outside the prison walls, an estimated 300 demonstrators, many of whom held candles and prayed, protested what they called ''state-assisted suicide." A few death-penalty supporters also gathered at the site.

Ross, a farm boy from Brooklyn, Conn., who graduated from Cornell University, waived his remaining appeals last year, fired his public defenders, and asked to be executed to spare the families of his victims the pain of further legal action.
Ross made no special request for his last meal, prison officials said, but ate the dinner served yesterday to all 18,000 inmates in the state prisons: turkey à la king, rice, mixed vegetables, and fruit.
He carried a Bible, a book of Bible verses, and candy when he was moved yesterday morning to a holding cell near the death chamber. Ross was visited by family, friends, and lawyers at various points during the day.

Detectives who arrested Ross in 1984 said they are convinced that he would have killed again if given the chance. Michael Malchik, the former State Police detective who took Ross's confession, called Ross a ''poster boy for the death penalty."
''It's going to be over," said Edwin Shelley of Griswold, the father of 14-year-old Leslie Shelley, who was murdered by Ross in 1984.

Yesterday, US District Judge Christopher F. Droney rejected separate attempts by Ross's father and estranged sister to block the execution. The rulings were appealed yesterday to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York and to the US Supreme Court, both of which rejected the challenges.
Ross's sister, Donna Dunham, argued that he was not competent to make the decision to forgo his appeals. The suit filed on behalf of Dan Ross, the prisoner's father, contended that an execution would cause a wave of suicide attempts among traumatized Connecticut prisoners.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut called the last-ditch lawsuits frivolous and said they ''seemed designed simply to derail or delay the criminal justice process, which should go forward to conclusion for the sake of all our citizens, most particularly the victims' families."

In a hearing before the state Supreme Court Wednesday, an affidavit submitted by Ross underscored his wish to be executed.
''I wish to make it clear that I do not authorize, endorse, concur in, or approve of any legal pleadings or petitions filed in any court anywhere in the time remaining between the execution of this affidavit and the moment of my execution unless they are filed by me or attorney T.R. Paulding Jr.," the affidavit read.

Ross was hours from death in January when Paulding, Ross's current lawyer, agreed to new hearings on Ross's mental competency. Paulding had been scolded by a federal judge, who threatened to revoke his law license for trying to hasten the execution.
At those hearings, two psychiatrists testified that Ross had a personality disorder that compelled him to choose death to avoid looking like a coward. Two other specialists disputed those findings and said he was sincerely remorseful. Based on those hearings, a judge last month again found Ross competent to decide his fate.

Before the execution this morning, protesters walked 30 miles to the prison from a Colonial gallows site in Hartford.
''Because the crimes of Michael Ross are so heinous, people often confuse us with being advocates for him," said Robert Nave, executive director of the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty. ''We are fighting against poor public policy, which is state-sponsored homicide."

Governor M. Jodi Rell decided in December not to grant Ross a reprieve that could have given lawmakers more time to debate the state's death penalty. By state law, the Connecticut governor cannot commute a death sentence.
In a January poll of Connecticut voters done by Quinnipiac University, 70 percent of those surveyed said they believed that Ross should be put to death. But only 59 percent said they favored the death penalty.

Over two decades in prison, Ross sought to parlay his criminal notoriety into celebrity status. He wrote articles for psychiatric journals and granted dozens of interviews. He distributed a newsletter from prison that detailed his incarceration and his views about the death penalty.

NEW LONDON, Conn. -- Back in February, William Satti found himself driving past the New London Superior Court.
He hadn't planned to take that route to work. But when he saw the television news trucks parked outside, Satti knew he had to stop.

Inside was condemned serial killer Michael Ross - the unassuming former insurance agent that Satti's late father, former New London State's Attorney C. Robert Satti, successfully argued should be put to death nearly 20 years ago.
"For some reason, I hadn't planned on it, but I was drawn there," said the younger Satti, a public relations executive with the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. Satti said he felt the need to represent his father in the courtroom "because of all his work, his hard work and dedication he put in over the years to do the right thing."

On that day in February, Ross was addressing the court shortly after his execution was put on hold because of questions surrounding the killer's mental competency. Ross maintains he is mentally competent to forgo his remaining appeals and finally face death.
A Superior Court judge agreed and Ross is scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection on Friday at 2 a.m.

During an interview last week from the Satti family home, which overlooks a cove near Ocean Beach Park, the prosecutor's widow and one of his sons said they hope Ross will finally be executed. They want the families of Ross' victims to get the justice that Satti spent years fighting for on their behalf.
"Every once in a while, I wake up and look out over this beautiful cove and I think of those lovely children that will never see a sunrise or a sunset, and how the parents must feel," Maureen Satti said. "It has to be devastating."

C. Robert Satti was the New London County state's attorney from 1975 to 1995. He died in 2002. Although Satti worked on countless cases, his family agrees the Ross murders were among the most notable and the ones that really affected them as well.
"This one was very much part of my life, to be honest with you," Maureen Satti said.
"It was my father's life, from 1984 until his passing in 2002," William Satti said.

The elder Satti would spend countless hours preparing for the case, including nights and weekends. His family described how he would meticulously take notes during the trial and use that information for more questioning the next day - hoping to tie up any loose ends and prevent Ross from avoiding death because of a mitigating factor.
Maureen Satti recalled traveling to Bridgeport, almost daily, to watch her husband at work during the first trial. It was held in Bridgeport because of the local publicity surrounding the case and the prosecutors stayed in a hotel during the week.

Although C. Robert Satti - a father of five - didn't share much about his cases with his family, Maureen Satti recalled her husband being concerned the victim's families had to drive from eastern Connecticut to Bridgeport for the trial. Every evening, he would meet with them after that day's testimony had finished.
C. Robert Satti knew the families were emotionally wrecked by the killings and he feared one of the fathers might try to shoot Ross when he entered the courtroom, Maureen Satti said.

Although the prosecutor was a Catholic, he believed strongly that Ross deserved the death penalty, she said. She said her husband thought capital punishment was appropriate for the most heinous cases. In Ross' situation, Satti did not believe that the killings - eight in total - stemmed from psychiatric problems.
"He killed for the sake of covering up that he raped these people," Maureen Satti said. "He was a predator."

Ross was ultimately sentenced in July 1987 to six separate death sentences for killing Wendy Baribeault, Robin Stavinsky, Leslie Shelley and April Brunais. But in July 1994, the state Supreme Court overturned the death sentences because a judge incorrectly excluded a letter from a psychiatric report. The court ordered a new penalty phase.

Four years later, C. Robert Satti, who had by then retired, agreed to come back on the scene and work with Ross to speed up the execution. They came up with an agreement promising the killer would not oppose the state's efforts to execute him.
That same year, however, a judge ruled the agreement signed by Ross was unconstitutional.

Satti's family said the prosecutor was frustrated that effort did not work. However, they said he understood why it takes so long in Connecticut to execute someone. And if he were alive today, he would accept why Ross' execution still has not been carried out.
"He'd understand and respect the process," said William Satti.

If Ross is finally executed on Friday morning, Maureen and William Satti said they won't be joyous. Like C. Robert Satti, they just believe the sentence should be carried out.
"I can't envision my husband sitting here and going, 'whoopee,"' Maureen Satti said. "He'd just take it very quietly and think, 'the job is done."'

"Even in Facing the Needle, a Killer Is Master of His Fate," by William Yardley. (May 12, 2005)

HARTFORD, May 11 - The videotape was taken earlier this year, during a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether Michael Bruce Ross, a convicted serial killer, is competent to forgo further appeals of his death sentence.
Tilting back in a chair in a prison cell, Mr. Ross is shown laughing and then offering several enthusiastic thumbs ups to the camera.

Played over and over on television here in recent weeks, the image of a killer seemingly smiling at death may be the last memory many people in Connecticut have of Mr. Ross. At 2:01 a.m. Friday, he is scheduled to die by lethal injection. He would be the first person executed in New England in 45 years.
For some, the video underscores claims that Mr. Ross is mentally disturbed and thrives on the attention surrounding his latest execution date, the second in four months. But his apparent self-assurance during the evaluation and in recent court appearances seems to confirm what judges have concluded: he controls his fate.

"He will always hold in his hand the opportunity to change his mind," said Christopher L. Morano, the chief state's attorney, whose office prosecuted Mr. Ross.
Until the moment the executioner administers the lethal injection into Mr. Ross's arm, he can stop the process by simply saying he wants to appeal.
"Under the law, we have no option but to honor that if he does so," Mr. Morano said. "But that doesn't mean we will not do all we can to bring finality for the loved ones of his victims."

Mr. Ross, 45, grew up on an egg farm in eastern Connecticut and graduated from Cornell University in 1981 with an economics degree. He was first arrested on murder charges in 1984 and eventually confessed to strangling eight girls and young women and raping most of them. He was sentenced to death for four of the murders.

His death sentence was upheld last May by the State Supreme Court. Mr. Ross has spent much of the time since then pursuing execution, rather than the array of state and federal appeals he still has available.
Many people close to the case expect the execution to go forward on Friday. But execution has seemed imminent before.

In January, Mr. Ross came within hours of execution before his lawyer, T. R. Paulding, unexpectedly requested a delay. Mr. Paulding, who had helped Mr. Ross seek execution, cited a potential conflict of interest after a federal judge, Robert N. Chatigny, of United States District Court, threatened to suspend his law license for not questioning Mr. Ross's competency more thoroughly.

That led to a six-day competency hearing last month in State Superior Court in New London that included testimony from four psychiatrists. Judge Patrick J. Clifford appointed a special counsel, Thomas J. Groark Jr., to argue that Mr. Ross is incompetent.
All four psychiatrists agreed that Mr. Ross had mental illness that included bouts of depression and narcissistic personality traits. Two said Mr. Ross was seeking to commit state-assisted suicide, and two said his mental health problems did not render him incompetent.
Mr. Ross has said he wants to be executed in order to help heal his victims' families.

Judge Clifford, who had found Mr. Ross competent after a one-day hearing in December, found him competent again after the April hearing. The State Supreme Court upheld that finding on Monday, four months after upholding the earlier competency finding.

Others who have filed motions to prevent the execution have failed. Mr. Ross dismissed public defenders last year, and except for Judge Chatigny, courts have since ruled that they lack legal standing in the case.
More motions were filed on Wednesday, with a lawyer representing a sister of Mr. Ross's asking a federal court to review whether Mr. Ross is making his decision voluntarily. The State Supreme Court had rejected the claim earlier in the day. Another suit, filed Wednesday on behalf of state inmates, claims that Mr. Ross's execution would "cause suicide contagion among suicidal and suicide-prone prisoners." Those motions were pending late Wednesday.

Mr. Ross issued an affidavit Wednesday saying any suits purportedly filed in his interest were "unwarranted, unauthorized and against my wishes."
Mr. Morano, the chief state's attorney, said his office had prepared countermotions in advance, anticipating various legal arguments.
"I'm sure that something will pop up that we haven't thought of," Mr. Morano said. "We'll be able to respond quickly should that occur."

About two dozen death-penalty opponents have spent the week walking the 30 miles from Trinity College in Hartford to Somers, where Mr. Ross is to be executed at Osborn Correctional Institution just south of the Massachusetts border.
"A serial killer should not be allowed to dictate public policy," said Robert Nave, director of the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, who is leading the march. "Michael Ross is totally in control."

Corrections officials say their plan to administer lethal injection to Mr. Ross is identical to what it was last winter.
At 2:01 a.m. Friday, the executioner is to begin administering a lethal dose of 2,500 milligrams of thiopental sodium with sodium chloride through an intravenous tube in the arm of Mr. Ross, who will be strapped to a padded table. The executioner will then administer 100 milligrams of pancuronium bromide, followed by potassium chloride.

Several people are scheduled to witness the execution. Mr. Ross requested three witnesses: Kathy Jaeger, a spiritual advocate who meets with him regularly; one other spiritual adviser; and a freelance writer working on a book about him, Martha Elliott. Several relatives of his victims and five members of the news media will witness the execution.
Mr. Paulding said that he met with Mr. Ross on Wednesday morning and that his client was determined to be executed. "He's totally committed to it," he said.

Michael Ross '81 was pronounced dead by lethal injection early this morning in New England's first execution in 45 years, at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Conn.
"The execution of Michael Bruce Ross has been carried out," said Warden Christine Whidden at 2:25 a.m., according to an AP report.

In 1987, Ross was sentenced to death for the murder of four Connecticut women in the early 1980s. The state supreme court overturned his death penalty ruling in 1995, only to reinstate it in May 2000.

Last year, Ross hired an attorney to speed up his own execution. His decision to forego any appeals caused a flurry of legal activity over the past few months.
"There are people who can't take it anymore, but who are going to show people how strong and powerful they are," said Dr. Stuart Grassian at a hearing reported by the AP. "He's trying to go down in a blaze of glory like these guys did."
"I owe these people. I killed their daughters. If I could stop the pain, I have to do that. This is my right," Ross told the AP last year. "I don't think there's anything crazy or incompetent about that."

300 people congregated outside the prison while Ross was being put to death.

On May 14, 1981, Dzung Ngoc Tu, a 25-year-old Cornell graduate student studying agricultural economics, was declared missing. Three days later, her body was found at the bottom of Fall Creek.
In the following years, it became increasingly clear that Tu was the first fatality in a series of eight sexual assault-turned-murders committed by Michael Ross '81, although he was never prosecuted or convicted of the crime.

SOMERS — Just four days shy of the 45th anniversary of Connecticut's last state-sanctioned killing, an executioner pumped a poison cocktail into the serial killer's veins. Minutes after 2 a.m., the 45-year-old Cornell graduate — who admitted to murdering eight women in New York and Connecticut and raping most of them — died, strapped to a gurney with strips of Velcro.

A flurry of 11th-hour lawsuits, appeals and demonstrators' pleas failed to stop the execution.
And Ross, a former insurance salesman from Jewett City, remained steadfast in his refusal to do so.
To the end he insisted he was going forward with his own death to spare his victims' families more grief.
"I killed their daughters," he said in explaining his decision to forgo further appeals. "If I could stop the pain, I have to do that. This is my right."

It has been more than 17 years since Ross was sentenced to death for multiple murders and the tortuous process of appeals, hearings and execution dates commenced.
Demonstrators on both sides of the death penalty issue were drawn to the execution scene late Thursday.

Among those against executing murderers was Sister Eileen Reilly, of the School Sisters of Notre Dame in Wilton.
"I am just so adamantly opposed to the state of Connecticut taking anyone's life in my name," she said, at the Somers Congregational Church, where about 150 people were in attendance at an interfaith vigil at 11 p.m. Thursday. "The state of Connecticut is saying we are doing this and I need to stand up and say not me.'
"Violence begets violence," she added.
Reilly said the whole Northeast was watching Connecticut, and she feared that executions might spread to other New England states.

Also, at the church was Stephen Kobasa of Bridgeport, a teacher at Kolbe-Cathedral High School.
"You start with your own conscious & To refuse to be associated with this; to refuse the state's direction that somehow this is done in our name," he said. "Just the very idea of knowing you're going at a particular day and hour, I mean, I don't think one can imagine what that must mean to the psyche," he said. "How does one bear that knowledge."
If the execution takes place, Kobasa said, "I'm hopeful that the horror that will accompany the reality renews people's commitment to the abolition of the death penalty."
Kobasa said people don't want to look at Ross as a human being, but as a "demon or animal" and, thus, fit for killing.

For Ross, Thursday began like every other day. He was awakened at 5:45 a.m. and was served breakfast 15 minutes later, according to Brian Garnett, Department of Correction spokesman.
Then, at 8:10 a.m., Ross grabbed his Bible, a book of Bible verses and some candy, before making the short walk with corrections officers to a holding cell next to the execution chamber at the Osborn Correctional Institution.

There he met with friends and family members throughout the day. The last visitor was to be sent away at 1:30 a.m. Ross received Communion at 9 a.m. He made no request for his last supper. Instead he chose to eat the same main course served to the state's 18,000 other inmates. Meanwhile, corrections officials were busy making sure everything was in place for Ross' date with the first execution in New England in 45 years.
No less than 30 practice runs had been accomplished by late Thursday.
At 6 p.m., 9 p.m. and 1:30 a.m., corrections officials checked two telephone lines in the execution chamber to ensure they were working for any last-minute reprieve. However, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said no last-minute reprieve would be coming from her.

Corrections officials monitored the courts throughout the day in case one should order the execution delayed. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected two last-minute appeals from Ross' relatives late Thursday afternoon, and the U.S. Supreme Court was denied final appeals late Thursday night.
Ross' last scheduled execution, on Jan. 29, was called off about an hour before it was to take place.

Hours earlier, Chief U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny threatened to pull Ross' attorney's law license for not doing enough to determine his client's competency.
That request set off a whole new set of hearings in state court. Ross was given another lawyer and was deemed mentally competent in his decision to request no appeals be filed on his behalf. Still that ruling was challenged and rejected by the state Supreme Court last week. By late morning Thursday, death penalty protesters completed a 30-mile walk begun Sunday from Hartford to the prison.

To reduce the possibility of any confrontations, the Department of Correction set up separate gathering areas for pro- and anti-death penalty groups.
At about 9 p.m., anti-death demonstrators gathered for a 2-hour interfaith prayer vigil.
At midnight, demonstrators on both sides were permitted to march within 50 feet of the prison.
High above them Trooper One, the Connecticut State Police helicopter hovered. It was prepared to chase any aircraft that approached within 1,000 feet of the prison.

By 12:30 a.m., the witnesses selected to view the execution boarded a van to take them to the prison's entrance. At 1:40 a.m., they entered the witness observatory.
Ross was to be led to the execution chamber and strapped to a gurney at 1:30 a.m. A catheter was to be attached to each of his arms. The left one was to carry the fatal dose.
The first injection was to be a sedative called thiopental sodium, administered in 2,500 milligrams to relax his body.
The next, 100 milligrams of pancuronium bromide is designed to paralyze him.
The last, 120 milligrams of potassium chloride, is supposed to stop his heart and kill him.

Once the lethal substance stops flowing into Ross' veins, a curtain would close over the witness observatory. It won't reopen. The last execution in Connecticut took place in 1960 and also involved a serial killer, Joseph "Mad Dog" Taborsky. He did not prey on young women. He killed anyone who came into his path during a robbery. He confessed to six murders and was electrocuted on May 17, 1960. Ross' victims ranged from 14 to 25 years of age. The two youngest were 14-year-olds, April Brunais and Leslie Shelley.

Edwin Shelley, Leslie's father, will be one of the witness to the execution. "It's going to be nice to come home and realize that the case is finished and that he has received his just rewards," Shelley said Thursday. "I think I will be very relaxed and at ease with myself."

ENFIELD-- When it comes to Michael Ross, a man who identified himself only as Richard S. from West Springfield, Mass., says he supports the death penalty.
"I'm really out here to protest the protesters," Richard said. "I think it's hypocritical of these people that they defend the most outrageous causes."

Wearing a baseball cap reading, "Grateful Citizens for the appreciation of veterans," Richard came to Somers Thursday night to show his support for the execution of Ross. He sat in Parking lot B south of the Robinson Visitor's Center where he set up a 4 foot-by-7 foot, handmade sign that said: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder."
It criticized liberal ideas such as defending mass murderers, burning the American flag and defending America's enemies.
"How can they defend a mass murder tooth and nail?" he asked. "They also defend America's enemies like the Taliban and al Qaida as well as other anti-American causes. But not one of them were out here when Terri Schiavo starved to death."

Richard S., who is not a war veteran, said Ross took a lot away from the victims' families, but has shown remorse and wants to die.
"He wants to make it right by the families," Richard S. said. "I support his decision. The judges are also so radical, they don't hesitate to starve a woman to death, but they'll go out of their way to help a mass murderer."

By 6:30 p.m., a group of teenage girls came to the site to make their own signs and show their support for the death penalty.
"I was chanting this all day in school," said Kaylah Winter, 16 of Somers, who was a holding a sign that said, "Turn Ross into Moss."

Her younger sister, Ashley, said they learned in school all about the Hammurabi code and that the punishment should fit the crime. Both sisters said they agree with this teaching.
"You can't tell me that he wasn't competent to tell us he wants to die, but he knew he should kill those girls," said Ashley Winter, 14, also of Somers. "He deserves to die. Like I said, the punishment should fit the crime. Plus, why should we keep him alive if it's causing our parents to pay more taxes?"

Lauren Mashiak, 17, also of Somers, said she is on the fence when it comes to the death penalty, but she supports the execution of Ross.
"I'm not sure I totally agree with it on every case, but on this one I think he should die," Mashiak said.

ROSS' LAST DAY

5:45 a.m.-- Woke up.6:00 a.m.-- Ate oatmeal for breakfast.6 a.m. to 8:10 a.m.-- Read the newspaper, watched television.8:10 a.m. -- Moved to the holding cell next to the death chamber. He took with him a Bible, a book of Bible verses, some candy and a coffee cup.9 a.m.-- Received communion.
11 a.m.-- Ate a cheeseburger and hash browns for lunch.11 a.m. to 3 p.m.Visited by family, friends and attorney.3 p.m. -- Ate final meal. He chose to eat the same meal served to all inmates on Thursday -- turkey a la king, rice, fruit, mixed vegetables and white bread.3 p.m.-- Continued receiving visitors.

"For a victim's parents, the quest for execution," by Stacey Stowe. (FRIDAY, MAY 13, 2005)

GRISWOLD, Connecticut In the 21 years since Leslie Shelley was strangled by Michael Ross, the Connecticut serial killer whose execution was scheduled for Friday morning, her father has remained haunted by one rhetorical question.
"Can you imagine how scared that little girl was?" Edwin Shelley asked, emotion sandpapering his voice and fogging his sunglasses. "And people tell me to turn the other cheek."
Shelley and his wife, Lera, have spent more years trying to ensure that Ross is executed than they had with their daughter. She was 14 when she died, one of eight girls and young women Ross murdered in a three-year period in the early 1980s.

Twice sentenced to die, the subject of numerous appeals, pleadings and psychiatric exams, Ross has followed a path to a sentence of death by lethal injection that has been anything but straight. The Shelleys, more than any of the other families of his victims, have accompanied him on that labyrinthine journey, driven by one goal: his execution.
"I don't think he's mentally ill," Lera Shelley said of Ross. "He might have a mental disorder, but he graduated from Cornell and he knew right from wrong."

After their daughter's murder, the Shelleys scoured court documents, police records and newspaper articles connected with the case. Edwin Shelley, 66, worked as a postman until 1992. His wife, 61, is a retired mental health aide who worked at a state psychiatric hospital.
After Leslie died, they also became legal experts, attending every day of Ross's two trials and his other court proceedings. He was convicted of killing their daughter; he confessed to her murder and the murders of seven other girls and young women. Most of the hearings involved his death sentence.

"When the guards brought him into the courthouse, I was close enough," Edwin Shelley said, smacking at the air, "to touch him."
"You could have killed him," Lera Shelley said.
"I could have," her husband answered.
They followed the case for "the girls," he said, not just Leslie but the seven others Ross killed. They described a compulsion to ensure that Ross did not escape death with an insanity defense.

On Wednesday, the Shelleys talked about their daughter while they fished off a wooden bridge above Kinne Brook, near their house in eastern Connecticut. They remembered her one and only home run in softball when she was 13, how she liked to wait up for her mother to finish the night shift so they could play cards and talk, how she could be stubborn but was "just a little sweetheart, pretty as a picture."
"You think you remember a lot, you got the face visualized, but you don't remember that much after 21 years," Edwin Shelley said.

In good weather, the Shelleys drive their pickup down to the brook, where they fished with Leslie and her siblings - an older brother and sister and a younger sister - in the days when they counted themselves lucky, when all their kids were alive. Only three reached adulthood, and the Shelleys have eight grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

On that Easter Sunday afternoon, April 22, 1984, when Leslie asked to go to the movies with her best friend, April Brunais, 14, who lived two houses away, her father said yes. April's mother was giving them a ride home, they said.
Instead, the girls hitchhiked home. Ross picked them up and drove them to a secluded spot in the woods, according to court documents. He ordered Leslie into the trunk of his car, where she could hear April's cries as Ross raped and strangled her friend. After apologizing to Leslie, he knelt on her back and killed her.
The girls' bodies were found two months later.

In the months and years after Leslie died, the Shelleys met with the families of Ross's victims and with relatives of other murder victims. They met with state legislators and worked to establish a prison psychiatric review board. They persuaded state officials to hire victims' advocates for each county.

The Shelleys planned to be at the execution of Ross, as they were last January when it was called off just hours before its scheduled time.
"The media will be on one side and Ross's family on the other, and we'll be right here," Edwin Shelley said, lining his feet on the slats of the bridge and motioning an alignment with an invisible Ross. "Dead center."

SOMERS, Conn. - Serial killer Michael Bruce Ross shut his eyes, swallowed hard, and died with a shudder and a gasp at about 2:14 a.m. today. And with that, Connecticut became the first state in New England in nearly 45 years to carry out an execution.

``You could see the life draining out of his face,’’ said Shelly Sindland of WTIC Fox 61, one of five media witnesses who watched Ross die in the execution chamber of Osborn Correctional Facility.

At a news conference shortly after Ross was put to death by lethal injection, media witnesses described Ross’s final moments, and family members of some of his victims said they believed justice had been served.
Edwin Shelley, whose daughter Leslie Shelley was murdered with her best friend, April Brunais, said early this morning, ``We have waited 21 years for justice. I’d like to thank the State of Connecticut’’ and all the law enforcement agencies involved, ``for giving us the justice our children deserved.’’

Meanwhile, hundreds of people who stood in a silent prayer vigil outside the Osborn facility began streaming back down the hill toward waiting buses. The protesters had begun their vigil with a mile-long march shortly after midnight, then waited in the cold, holding banners and signs against the death penalty, chatting quietly or listening while some people prayed aloud.
Twenty minutes before the scheduled execution, the protesters lit candles, then fell silent until word came at 2:30 a.m. through jingling cell phones, that Ross was dead.

Elizabeth Diaz and Linda Preate relight their candles as they joined other protesters making their way to the Osborn Correctional Facility in Somers, Conn., early this morning.
The execution followed months of legal wrangling over whether Ross was mentally competent to decide not to pursue further appeals. In January, he twice came within hours of being executed before the courts stepped in and granted temporary stays.

He had been on death row since 1987 for the kidnap-murders of four young Connecticut women in the early 1980s. Ross confessed to killing four other women, two from Connecticut and two whom he killed when he was a student at Cornell University. He was convicted in three of those cases, but was never prosecuted for the murder of Dzung Ngoc Tu, who was a graduate student at Cornell when she became his first victim.
Debbie Dupris, sister of murder victim Robin Dawn Stavinsky, said, ``Finally, justice has been served and I know our sister Robin Dawn Stavinsky is looking down upon us."

Dupris added, ``None of you know what we went through tonight. I thought I’d feel closure, but I felt anger watching him lay there and sleep – after what he did to these young women.’’
A statement from the state’s Department of Correction said, ``Death occurred at 2:25 a.m. on this day, after the administration of a lethal injection at the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers Connecticut.’’

Media witnesses said that a curtain opened at 2:08 a.m. onto the sight of Ross lying strapped to a gurney with his eyes closed and a spotlight shining down on him in a dim execution chamber.
He was asked, "Inmate Ross, do you wish to make a final statement?" Ross replied, "No thank you."

Edwin Shelley, the father of one of Michael Ross' victims, is joined by other victim's family members for a press confererence this morning after the execution of Michael Ross.
Drugs were apparently administered at about 2:13 a.m., as soon as a warden in the execution chamber hung up the phone.

Gerry Brooks, a reporter for WVIT NBC 30, said, ``It was very very quiet in there.’’
``He never looked … he just lay there with his head back, looking directly up at the ceiling,’’ said Brooks. ``There was a gasp, there was a shudder, but that was it. The man barely moved other than that shudder. And at 2:15, the man was gone,’’ Brooks said.

Steve Kalb of the Connecticut Radio Network reported that Ross was strapped down, ``and his fingers were all taped closed at the end. He shuddered a bit after the first drugs were administered. He was flesh-colored when we walked in – he was ashen when we left. It almost seemed surreal. His eyes were closed, it was like, `Go ahead let’s just end this.’ ‘’

A statement issued jointly by Kevin T. Kane, state’s attorney for the New London judicial district and Chief State’s Attorney Christopher L. Morano said, ``This death sentence resulted from a unanimous verdict of a jury of twelve that was exhaustively scrutinized and affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut and the Supreme Court of the United States. The penalty was set by the General Assembly and the evidence and the law called for it.’’

Kane and Morano also stated, ``Our only sympathies are with these brave families, who have been victimized again and again with each step in this process. May they find some element of peace in the conclusion of the duly ordered legal proceedings in this matter.’’

The sentencing of serial killer Michael Ross for the 1982 killing of 16-year-old Paula Perrera marked a strange ending to a nearly two-decade old case. Orange County Court Judge Nicholas DeRosa sentenced Ross, who is to be returned to death row in Connecticut, to 8¤ to 25 years in prison for the 1982 rape and strangulation of the Valley Central High School girl. DeRosa said he had nothing to say to Ross. So, he spoke to Paula's family instead. He said Ross will ultimately be judged in the next life. "That's the only comfort," he said, "if you can take comfort in anything."

Ross was tied to the case by DNA evidence last year, after state police investigators secured a confession in a Connecticut prison. "Paula's now been dead longer than she was alive," said Alicia Catlos, Paula's aunt. Catlos spoke for the family, saying that many of Paula's family "just don't even want to be in the same room as Michael Ross." Ross, 42, never looked up from the defense table as Catlos spoke. The pasty-faced man wore his longish brown hair combed straight back, big eyeglasses, a white shirt, and jeans turned up about four inches at the cuff. He has been convicted in Connecticut of six killings of young girls.
Ross's brutal killing of Paula Perrera on March 1, 1982, damaged the girl's family and the effects linger to this day, Catlos said. Paula's younger brother left home soon after the killing. Her grandmother had to live with burying a granddaughter. John Geidel, the Orange County senior assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case, noted that Ross's sentencing won't have any effect on his ultimate fate. But, he said, it still was important. Paula Perrera "could have been the sister, daughter of anyone in this community," he said. Defense lawyer Gary Abramson, the chief attorney of the Orange County Legal Aid Society, thanked Geidel and the district attorney's office for bringing the case to a close.

The plea Ross took last month to first-degree manslaughter spared the Perrera family of what would have been "an emotionally damaging" trial. Ross spoke briefly, saying he never denied killing Paula Perrera, that he had confessed as far back as 1987. Still, he said, he thanked state police Investigator Charles Auld for the detective work that led to Ross' return to Orange County. "I've never hidden what I've done," he said. "I regret that this has taken so long to be taken care of."

Edwin Shelley, father of 14-year-old victim Leslie Shelley, says any sympathy for Ross is misplaced. "If you recall what he did to eight young women, it's hard to have sympathy for a man like that," he said. "I don't care how he dies, as long as he does."

The state of Connecticut is scheduled to execute Michael Bruce Ross, a white man, on May 13, 2005 for the 1983 and 1984 New London County murders of Robin Stavinsky and minors Wendy Baribeault, Leslie Shelley, and April Brunais. All four victims were white.

If the death sentence is carried out, it will be the first execution in Connecticut in nearly 45 years. In 1994, the Supreme Court overturned Ross's death sentence because the jury had not been able to consider evidence that the murders were the result of sexual sadism, a psychiatric disorder. At a re-sentencing in 2000, the jury rejected the sexual sadism claim as a mitigating factor and once again sentenced Ross to death.

Ross, a graduate of Cornell University, has been diagnosed with mental illness by several mental health professionals, including the state’s own psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Miller.

According to evidence presented at trial, Ross’ childhood consisted of abuse from his mother. His siblings testified at trial that he often received the brunt of their mother’s anger through physical and mental abuse. Ross’ mother was institutionalized twice for issues pertaining to suicidal tendencies and for the abuse of her children.

One psychiatrist who evaluated Ross, Dr. Borden, stated, “All you have to do is look at the Norwich hospital records…and right there in black and white they talked about the child abuse going on….” Borden went on to note that there is reason to believe that the abuse was serious as it was rarely documented at that time.

After spending years trying to prove that he is suffering from a mental illness which he says drove him to rape and kill eight women in total, Ross now says he prefers to be executed. He claims he believes it to be the least painful scenario for the families of his victims.

The execution of the mentally ill is a deplorable violation of international human rights standards. In April 2000, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights urged all states that maintain the death penalty "not to impose it on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder” and “not to execute any such person."

Ross was schedule for execution on Jan. 26, 2005 but received a stay when questions regarding his competency and legal counsel halted his execution.

The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles is not able to grant clemency because Ross has refused to file a clemency petition at this time. Please write to Gov. Jodi Rell asking her to grant Mr. Ross clemency on the grounds that the execution of the mentally ill violates international human rights standards.

Daniel and Patricia Ross' marriage was beset with problems from the beginning. The troubles began while Patricia ("Pat") was in high school and became unexpectedly pregnant, which led to their forced union. According to a 1996 article by Martha Elliott in The Connecticut Law Tribune, "Pat wanted no part of the marriage or of being the wife of a chicken farmer in Brooklyn, Connecticut." Yet, at the time she had little choice.

Michael Ross was born on July 26, 1959. He would be the first of four children born to the hapless couple over the space of five years. Elliott claimed that during Michael's youth there was evidence that his mother, wrought with psychiatric problems, mentally and physically abused him. In fact, Pat purportedly became so psychologically unstable and volatile towards her children that she was admitted to a psychiatric institution on at least two separate occasions and Daniel eventually became the primary guardian of the children. Elliott further suggested that when Michael was 8, there was evidence that his teenaged uncle, who babysat him and formed a close bond with the boy, sexually abused Michael before committing suicide at the age of 14.

Despite the trauma Michael endured, he managed to excel in school. He had a special interest in animal science and dreamed of one day owning his own farm. In 1977, after graduating from Killingly High School, Michael went on to study agricultural economics at Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

While at school, Michael was socially active and joined several organizations, including the Alpha Zeta fraternity and the Future Farmers of America, Katherine Davis reported in the Cornell Daily Sun in October 2000. Moreover, he became involved in several relationships with some beautiful young co-eds, one to which he became engaged. However, Elliott claimed that the relationships always ended in failure and Michael's "dream of the perfect family began to be crowded by other fantasies -- disturbing, violent, sexual fantasies."

It didn't take long for his fantasies to spiral out of control. During his second year at school Michael started to stalk young women. Eventually his violent sexual urges took on a new dimension when he began raping many of the women he stalked. Amazingly, he evaded capture for a couple years. However, in September 1981 shortly after his graduation he finally landed himself in jail for assaulting a young teenaged girl.

At the time of the incident, Michael was working as a management trainee for a Cargill, Inc. in North Carolina, Rebecca James reported in a Syracuse online article. During a business trip to Illinois, he kidnapped a 16-year-old girl, dragged her into the woods and gagged her before being interrupted by the police in mid-activity. Michael was arrested for unlawfully restraining the girl, was fined $500 and put on probation.

The police had no idea that the man they arrested and subsequently let go was responsible for not only assault but something much more sinister. That May, the body of Dzung Ngoc Tu, 25, was discovered in Fall Creek located at the bottom of a gorge in Ithaca, New York. Initially police believed that she committed suicide. Eventually, they realized that Dzung was actually the victim of a brutal rape and murder. Michael's violent fantasies had taken a deadly toll and Dzung would be considered his first known murder victim.

A raging sexual sadist, Michael Ross raped and murdered at least six women over In the early 1980's in Connecticut and possibly New York. A graduate of Cornell university with a high I.Q., Ross' first known murder took place in Brooklyn on January 5, 1982, when he abducted and killed Tammy Williams, 17. Later that spring Ross spent time in a mental instiution after a failed attack on an female off-duty police officer but apparently wasn't helped by his incarceration. On June 15 he killed again when he found Debra Taylor wandering a rural road in search of a gas station. Her skeletal remains were found were not discovered until late October. By that time Ross was serving a four month jail term for assault charges stemming from a seperate incident.

It wasn't until November 16, 1983, that Ross killed again. Robin Stravinsky disappeared in Norwich, Connecticut, never to be seen alive again. Her body was discovered about a week later. Then on April 22, 1984, he managed a double killing in Griswold, Connecticut, when he murdered 14-year-old neighbors April Brunais and Leslie Shelley. Ross followed that up in June with the murder of Wendy Baribeault whose body was found on June 15. Witnesses reported seeing a compact car in the area and when police ran through the owners of similar vehicles, they landed on Ross and coerced a swift confession from the killer, including two killings in New York that have never been pursued. The helpful Ross also led police to the unknown dump sites of Shelley, Brunais, and Williams.

By July of 1987 Ross had racked up 120 years in prison and four death sentences for his crimes, though Connecticut hasn't put anyone to death in about 30 years. Originally seeking swift end to his saga, Ross began to fight his penalties in the 1990's and managed to get his death sentences overturned. In May of 2000 the sentences were reinstated after a new penalty hearing.

8/17/2001-Ross was arrainged on August 6, 2001, for the murder of sixteen-year-old Paula Perrera in 1982 while Ross was a student at Cornell. Perrera's body was found in Wallkill, New York, and DNA samples taken recently from Ross link him to the girl's murder. Even if convicted of Perrera's murder Ross will serve no time for the state of New York as they have agreed to allow Ross to serve out his Connecticut death sentence.

9/29/2001-Ross has pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter in the death of Perrera while under "extreme emotional disturbance" (yeah, no kidding). He is scheduled to be sentenced in the case on October 22.

10/23/2001-Ross was sentenced yesterday in the murder of Paula Perrera. He received a prison term of 8 1/3 to 25 years for the slaying.

10/7/2004-Ross has chosen to end all appeals and an execution date has been set for January 26, 2005. the Ivy League graduate will be the first person executed in Connecticut since 1960.

2/19/2005-Nothing is ever easy, is it? In spite of his wishes, Ross' execution was delayed several times. After much last-second legal wrangling it was set for 2 a.m. on January 29 but was called off yet again just four hours beforehand. The courts have ordered a new round of competency evaluations and another new date has been set for May 11. I wouldn't put any money on that, though.

"The following article, ITS TIME FOR ME TO DIE, An Inside Look At Death Row was published in a psychiatric journal,
and gives a good overview of my legal case and personal living conditions - a good introduction to my life here." - Michael Ross.
Also gives insight into Ross' crimes and attacks against women; and medical treatment he has recieved in prison.

OTHER WRITINGS BY MICHAEL ROSS
Its Time For Me To Die - Inside Look At Death Row
Seeking Reconciliation From Death Row
On God's Death Row - by Michael B. Ross
WHY I CHOOSE DEATH RATHER THAN TO FIGHT FOR LIFE
A Collection of Other Writings by Michael
Read 'Two favourite prayers of mine...I hope you will enjoy them as well- MBR
Michael Ross In The News - News articles About The Case
Notice To All Religious Communities In The United States

Michael Ross Speaks From Connecticut's Death Row
Michael is a death row prisoner and an admitted serial killer who was the first man in years to be sentenced to death in the state of Connecticut. Michael has become an accomplished writer during his time on death row, and has been published in the Utne Reader, The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, and several other publications.

NOTE / October 14, 2000
"I have been locked up for 16 years so I really don't know anything about computers and/or webpages...
I correspond with almost 100 people now. Because I couldn't keep up with individual letters I started writing a monthly update, photocopying it, and sending it out to everyone. Soon my friends came up with the name "Walking With Michael," - which stuck !
...Thank you very much for your time. - Sincerely, Michael B Ross."

MICHAEL ROSS ENTERING COURTHOUSE JUNE 9, 1987
" ...DO NOT send me money, stamps, or books - there are specific prison rules and to what I can receive and from whom I can receive these items. Some friends do help me out with postage costs from time to time - if you would like to do so let me know and I will give
you specific instructions on what to do. However, if you cannot afford to do so, don't feel bad - the vast majority of people I write
to do not support me financially. You are not expected to. Until next month, Michael. "

Serial Killer Michael Ross - It's Time to Die: The story of confessed serial killer Michael Ross is a tragic tale of a young man who came from a farm life he loved, although he cannot remember the abuse he suffered as a child. It is also a tale of this same man who, driven by sexually violent fantasies, brutally raped and murdered eight young girls. And finally it is a tragic tale of a judicial system that is riddled with imperfections in its responsibility of deciding life or death.

Michael Ross -- His Childhood Years: Michael Ross was born on July 26, 1959 to Daniel and Pat Ross in Brooklyn, Conn. According to court records, the two married after Pat discovered she was pregnant. The marriage was not a happy one. Pat hated farm life and after having four children and two abortions, she ran off to North Carolina to be with another man. When she returned home she was institutionalized at Norwich Hospital. The admitting doctor wrote that Pat talked of suicide and of beating and striking her children.

A Child Abused: Ross' sister says that as a child, Ross took the brundt of his mother's anger. It is also suspected that an uncle of Ross's who committed suicide may have sexually molested Ross while babysitting him. Ross says he remembers very little about his childhood abuse, but does remember how much he loved helping his father around the farm.

Strangling Chickens: After his uncle committed suicide the job of killing sick and malformed chickens became eight-year-old Michael's responsibility. He would strangle the chickens with his hands. As Michael got older, more of the farm responsibilities became his and by the time he was in high school his father depended a lot on Ross' help. Michael loved farm life and met his responsibilities while also attending high school. With a high IQ of 122, balancing school with farm life was manageable.

Ross' College Years: In 1977, Ross entered Cornell University and studied agricultural economics. He began dating a woman who was in ROTC and dreamed of someday marrying her. When the woman became pregnant and had an abortion, the relationship began to falter. After she decided to signup for a four-year service commitment, the relationship ended. In retrospect Ross says as the relationship became more troubled he began to have fantasies that were sexually violent. By his sophomore year he was stalking women.

Fantasies of Rape and Murder: In his senior year at college, despite being engaged to another woman, Ross' fantasies were consuming him and he committed his first rape. In that same year, he also committed his first rape and murder by strangulation. Ross said afterward he hated himself for what he did and tried to commit suicide, but lacked the ability to do it and instead promised himself he would never hurt anyone again. However, by 1984, Ross had raped and killed eight young women, the oldest being 25.

Finding Ross: Michael Malchik was assigned chief investigator after the murder of Wendy Baribeault in 1984. Witnesses provided Malchik with both the description of the car -- a blue Toyota -- and the person who they believed kidnapped Wendy. Malchik began the process of interviewing a list of blue Toyota owners which brought him to Michael Ross. Malchik testified that during their initial meeting, Ross enticed Malchik to ask more questions by dropping subtle hints that he was their man.

Ross Confesses: By now, Ross was living in Jewett City as an insurance salesman. His parents had divorced and sold the farm. During the interview with Malchik, Ross told of his past two arrests on sex offenses. It was at this point Malchik decided to bring him to the station for questioning. At the station the two talked like old friends: discussing family, girl friends, life in general. By the conclusion of the interrogation Ross confessed to the kidnapping, rape, and murder of eight young women.

The Judicial System: In 1986, Ross' defense team moved for a dismissal on two of the murders, Leslie Shelley and April Brunais, because they were not murdered in Connecticut and not within the jurisdiction of the state. The state said that the two women were murdered in Connecticut, but even if they hadn't been, the murders began and ended in Connecticut which granted the state jurisdiction.

The Credibility Factor: But then a question of credibility came up when the state produced a statement by Malchik claiming that Ross gave Malchik directions to the crime scene. Malchik claimed that somehow the directions were left out of statements, both written and taped, two years earlier. Ross denied ever giving such directions.

Evidence in Rhode Island: The defense produced cloth matching a slip cover in Ross' apartment which was found in the woods in Exeter, Rhode Island, along with a ligature used to strangle one of the girls. The defense also produced a taped statement of Ross offering to take the police to the crime scene, although Malchik stated he didn't recall such an offer.

Possible Cover up: Superior Court Judge Seymour Hendel exploded during the closed hearing, accusing the prosecutors and police of purposely misleading the court with lies. Some of the counts against Ross were removed, but the judge refused to reopen the suppression hearing on Ross' confession. When sealed records were opened two years later, Hendel retracted his statements.

Ross is Convicted: In 1987, Ross was convicted for the murders of four of the eight women he confessed to killing. It took the jury 86 minutes of deliberations to convict him and only four hours to decide on his punishment -- death. But the trial itself faced a lot of criticism in regards to the Judge who presided over it.

Profile of Serial Killer -- Michael Ross -- Part 2

The Judge Rolls His Eyes and Reads His Mail, During Testimony: Karen Clark, who covered his case for The Day of New London reported that Judge Ford allegedly demonstrated inappropriate behavior toward the defense team and their witnesses. He read mail, clipped his hails, rolled his eyes and appeared bored during defense testimony. Some felt his lack of respect toward the defense could have influenced the jury.

The Judge Badgers Ross' Sister: An example was Judge Ford's behavior during the testimony of Ross' sister regarding his childhood abuse. Ford verbally lashed out at her, firing questions at her regarding her childhood, which were interpreted as an attempt to discredit her testimony.

Psychiatrist's Felt Disrespected by the Judge: Psychiatrist Borden said that Ford would whisper disapproving comments to him during his testimony. Dr. Berlin was quoted as saying that the doctors who were testifying to things that might have mitigated in Michael Ross' behalf were not dealt with in a polite and respectful fashion by the judge.
Berlin later filed a complaint with the Judicial Review Council but the council decided that there was insufficient evidence showing misconduct on Ford's part and the complaint was dismissed.

Did Ross Receive His Miranda Rights?: During Ross' appeals, his defense team questioned whether Ross was read his Miranda rights as soon as it was reasonable to assume he was in custody. Ross and Malchik both agree that Ross confessed to the murders before he was read his rights. Malchik testified that Ross knew he could leave at any point prior to the confession. The custody question remains debatable.

Ross Writes About His Illness: After his conviction, Ross spent his time in prison submitting his writings and doing interviews about what he viewed as mistreatment by the judicial system. He seemingly cooperated with the investigation of the murders he committed, but in return wanted his acts to be seen as what he believes they are: an illness that he cannot control.

A Cover Up?: Dr. Miller, who was originally set to testify for the state, asked to be pulled from the trial because he no longer could testify that Ross didn't in fact suffer from a mental illness, sexual sadism, and felt that the death penalty was not warranted. But his words were never heard by the jury because Judge Ford would not let the doctor's letter to the state be seen.

Later, in 1994, six death sentences were thrown out on appeal because of the Judges decision regarding Miller's letter.
Fantasies End and Reality Begins: In 1992, Ross made the decision not to fight any more appeals. At this point he was being treated with large doses of Depro-Lupron, a drug that inhibits testosterone and in Ross' case, he has said, resulted in ending the fantasies of rape and murder. Once the fantasies were gone Ross then had to deal with the reality of his crimes and those he hurt as a result of them.

Ross Wants to Stop All Appeals: Ross has said he no longer wants the families of his victims to be hurt, and that because of the way the judicial system is designed, his illness will never be brought to the forefront of discussion, which was a motivating factor to him to stay alive these past years.

Is This a Form of Manipulation?: Some believe this is just a way for Ross' to manipulate the system by questioning his sanity for wanting to die thus postponing his execution.

"It's Time to Die" Ross, now 45, has waived all appeals and has become a "volunteer" for his scheduled execution on January 26, 2005. If he is executed he will be the first convict to be put to death in New England in 45 years.

State v. Ross, 225 Conn. 559, 624 A.2d 886 (1993) (Direct Appeal)

Defendant who had been convicted in the Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield, Ford, J., and who had appealed from judgments of conviction of capital felony and from imposition of death sentence after those convictions filed motion for enlargement of class of similar cases that Supreme Court will consider in determining whether his death sentence is justified in light of proportionality requirement. The Supreme Court held that class would be expanded to add any case in which capital felony conviction had been obtained after October l, 1973, and conviction was followed by imposition of sentence other than death.
Motion granted in part.
Berdon, J., filed dissenting opinion.

PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Michael Ross, who has appealed from the judgments of conviction of capital felony and from the imposition of the death sentence after those convictions, has filed a motion for enlargement of the class of similar cases that we will consider in determining whether his death sentence is justified in light of the proportionality requirement of General Statutes § 53a-46b(b)(3) [FN1]

Exercising its rule-making authority, this court has determined to limit the class of similar cases, in accordance with the requirements of the statute, to cases in which the conviction of a capital felony after trial was followed by a hearing to consider the imposition of the death penalty. Practice Book § 4066A(b). [FN2] In the particular circumstances of this defendant's appeal, we have allowed the class of similar cases to be enlarged to include the defendant's two murder convictions for which consecutive life sentences were imposed as a result of his entering pleas of nolo contendere after the original charges of capital felony were reduced.
FN1. General Statutes § 53a-46b(b)(3) provides: "REVIEW OF DEATH SENTENCE ....
"(b) The supreme court shall affirm the sentence of death unless it determines that ... (3) the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the circumstances of the crime and the character and record of the defendant."

FN2. Practice Book § 4066A(b) provides: "[briefs]--review of death sentences pursuant to general statutes § 53a-46b ....
"(b) For the purpose of reviewing the issue of disproportionality pursuant to Gen.Stat., § 53a-46b(b)(3) , the briefs of the parties shall contain appendices setting forth the circumstances of the crimes that are claimed to be similar to that of which the defendant has been convicted and the characters and records of the defendants involved therein so far as these are ascertainable from the transcripts of those trials and hearings on the imposition of the death penalty or may be judicially noticed. Only those capital felony cases that have been prosecuted in this state after October 1, 1973, and in which hearings on the imposition of the death penalty have taken place, whether or not the death penalty has been imposed, shall be deemed eligible for consideration as 'similar cases,' unless the court, on application of a party claiming that the resulting pool of eligible cases is inadequate for disproportionality review, shall modify this limitation in a particular case. Any such application shall identify the additional case or cases claimed to be similar and set forth, in addition to the circumstances of the crime and the character and record of the defendant involved, the provisions of the applicable statutes pertaining to the imposition of the death penalty with citations of pertinent decisions interpreting such provisions.
"Any such application shall be filed within thirty days after the delivery date of the transcript ordered by the appellant, or, if no transcript is required or the transcript has been received by the appellant prior to the filing of the appeal, such application shall be filed within thirty days after filing the appeal."

The defendant now asks that the class of similar cases be further amended in one of two ways. His more expansive proposal is to enlarge the class of similar cases to include any case prosecuted after October 1, 1973, in which the state could have charged the defendant with a capital felony and that resulted in a conviction of not less than manslaughter in the first degree. General Statutes §§ 53a-55. His more limited proposal is to enlarge the class of similar cases to include all capital felony cases prosecuted after October 1, 1973, that resulted in a conviction of not less than manslaughter in the first degree following a plea or a trial.

We unanimously decline to accept the defendant's more expansive proposal. That proposal does not differ materially from the proposals that we rejected when, in exercising our rule-making authority, we defined the class of similar cases to include "[o]nly those capital felony cases that have been prosecuted in this state after October 1, 1973, and in which hearings on the imposition of the death penalty have taken place...." Practice Book § 4066A(b).

With regard to the defendant's more limited proposal, we unanimously agree, in the circumstances of this case, to amend our existing definition of the class of similar cases to add any case in which a capital felony conviction has been obtained and the conviction was followed not by a hearing on the imposition of the death penalty but by an imposition of a sentence other than death, either by virtue of a plea agreement or by virtue of the fact that the state did not seek the death penalty. If this predicate has been met, and if the record contains sufficient information to enable a relevant comparison to be undertaken, then we will consider such cases as part of the class of similar cases.

We decline, however, to include in the relevant class any cases in which the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of a capital felony. In the first appeal from the imposition of a death sentence, it is inevitable that proportionality review will have to be undertaken against the background of a limited number of similar cases. That inevitability warrants intensive scrutiny of the cases that are similar but does not justify distortion of the principle of similarity. In the special circumstances of this case, we have granted the defendant's preliminary motions for permission to file an out-of-time application to expand the universe of cases for proportionality review, and have permitted him to file a supporting memorandum exceeding the normal page limit. We are unpersuaded that oral argument would provide any further enlightenment in deciding the merits of his motion.

Under the express provisions of General Statutes §§ 53a-35a, [FN4] only conviction of a capital felony subjects a defendant to the possible imposition of a death sentence. Only conviction of a capital felony occasions a hearing into mitigating and aggravating factors to determine whether the death penalty should be imposed. Only conviction of a capital felony will put on the record the circumstances that are relevant to the proportionality review mandated by § 53a-46b(b)(3).

FN4. General Statutes § 53a-35a provides in relevant part: "imprisonment for any felony committed on or after july 1, 1981: definite sentences; terms authorized. For any felony committed on or after July 1, 1981, the sentence of imprisonment shall be a definite sentence and the term shall be fixed by the court as follows: (1) For a capital felony, a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of release unless a sentence of death is imposed in accordance with section 53a-46a...."
General Statutes § 53a-46a provides in relevant part: "hearing on imposition of death penalty. aggravating and mitigating factors. (a) A person shall be subjected to the penalty of death for a capital felony only if a hearing is held in accordance with the provisions of this section.
"(b) For the purpose of determining the sentence to be imposed when a defendant is convicted of or pleads guilty to a capital felony, the judge or judges who presided at the trial or before whom the guilty plea was entered shall conduct a separate hearing to determine the existence of any mitigating factor concerning the defendant's character, background and history, or the nature and circumstances of the crime, including any mitigating factor set forth in subsection (g), and any aggravating factor set forth in subsection (h)."

In view of this unambiguous statutory pattern, the propriety of a death sentence imposed for conviction of a capital felony cannot appropriately be compared with sentences imposed as the result of convictions of less serious crimes. As a matter of law, sentences imposed as the result of such other convictions have not been "imposed in similar cases," as § 53a-46b(b)(3) requires.
The motion is granted in part to enlarge the class of similar cases for the purposes of this appeal to include all convictions of a capital felony after October 1, 1973, whether such convictions resulted from a trial or from a plea and whether or not such convictions were followed by the imposition of the death penalty.

In this opinion PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, NORCOTT and DUPONT, JJ., concurred.

BERDON, Associate Justice, dissenting.
The defendant, Michael Ross, moves to expand the universe of cases because the present rules and case law are inadequate for proportionality review. The defendant lists only fifteen cases that can now be considered (including four cases in which he was a defendant).
I would grant the defendant's request for oral argument on the motion. Certainly, we should allow both the defendant and the state to supplement their written argument and respond to our questions on a matter as important as determining whether the death penalty should be imposed.

First, I must put the defendant's request in its proper perspective, as the New Jersey Supreme Court did in State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 524 A.2d 188 (1987). "Proportionality review has a function entirely unique among the review proceedings in a capital proceeding. Proportionality review, in the context of a capital sentencing scheme, is not appellate review to ensure that the aggravating factors outweigh beyond a reasonable doubt all the mitigating factors ... or to determine if the death sentence is disproportionate to the crime in violation of the ban against cruel and unusual punishment. That death is not disproportionate in the sense of being a cruel and unusual punishment is presumed by the nature of the review.... Rather, the purpose of review here is of a different sort.... It purports to inquire instead whether the penalty is nonetheless unacceptable in a particular case because [it is] disproportionate to the punishment imposed on others convicted of the same crime.

"The heightened concern in a capital case for whether a sentence is disproportionate in this sense is twofold and derives from the finality of the result and the risk that the proceedings are vulnerable to the influence of impermissible considerations. First, the imposition of death by public authority is ... profoundly different from all other penalties.... Because of this fundamental distinction between the death penalty and all other punishments, there is a corresponding difference in the need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case. Proportionality review assists us in assuring that we have designed procedures which are appropriate to the decision between life and death and ... [that] we have followed those procedures.

"Proportionality review further acts as a check against the random and arbitrary imposition of the death penalty by an aberrant jury.... [G]iven the emotions generated by capital crimes, it may well be that juries, trial judges, and appellate courts considering sentences of death [may be] affected by impermissible considerations.... Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or other suspect characteristic cannot be tolerated. As the Florida Supreme Court stated: [Proportionality review] by this Court guarantees that the reasons present in one case will reach a similar result to that reached under similar circumstances in another case. No longer will one man die and another man live on the basis of race, or a woman live and a man die on the basis of sex. If a defendant is sentenced to die, this Court can review that case in light of the other decisions and determine whether or not the punishment is too great. Thus, the discretion charged in Furman v. Georgia, [408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972),] can be controlled and channeled until the sentencing process becomes a matter of reasoned judgment rather than an exercise in discretion at all....

"Proportionality review therefore is a means through which to monitor the imposition of death sentences and thereby to prevent any impermissible discrimination in imposing the death penalty." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 106 N.J. at 326-27, 524 A.2d 188.

Why this court is so restrictive in expanding the universe of cases to be considered is beyond my comprehension. Allowing a case to be included in the universe under our rules of practice; Practice Book § 4066A(b); does not mean that the case is automatically considered a "similar" case under proportionality review mandated by General Statutes § 53a-46b. Certainly, to grant the defendant's alternative request disadvantages no one--the state, the defendant or the court--except that it may mean more work for all of us in attempting to sort out those cases that are "similar" from those that are not. I would prefer to rely on the good faith efforts of the parties to include only cases that are similar. When so much is at stake--life or death--we should have all the relevant information before us so we can make a just decision.

The majority of this court today does grant partial relief for the defendant by our sua sponte modification of the request, but we do not have any information as to whether that relief will increase the universe of cases and if so, the extent of the increase. On the basis of the briefs before me today, and without the benefit of oral argument, I would grant the defendant's alternative proposal, which he estimates would increase the universe by approximately twenty-five additional cases. That proposal would "include all capital felony cases prosecuted in Connecticut after October 1, 1973, which likewise resulted in a conviction of at least Manslaughter in the First Degree (General Statutes §§ 53a-55 following a plea or trial."
Accordingly, I dissent.

State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 646 A.2d 1318 (1994) (Direct Appeal)

Defendant was convicted of six counts of capital felony and sentenced to death following jury trial in Superior Court, Judicial District of New London, Ford, J., following grant in part by Hendel, J., of motion to dismiss, and defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, Peters, C.J., held that: (1) defendant was properly convicted of murder in the course of kidnapping though killings occurred in Rhode Island, where there was evidence that defendant kidnapped victims in Connecticut with intent to kill them; (2) defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes even after officer voiced belief that defendant had killed one of the victims; (3) even if missing witness instruction was improper, it was harmless; (4) trial court should have instructed jury expressly in accordance with language of statute requiring two witnesses or equivalent evidence in capital felony cases, but defendant was not harmed by form in which trial court responded to request for instruction; (5) death penalty statute is constitutional under Federal and State Constitutions; (6) evidence was sufficient to establish aggravating circumstance that offenses were especially heinous, cruel and depraved; (7) such aggravating factor is a single unitary factor requiring intentional infliction of extreme psychological or physical pain or torture above and beyond that necessarily accompanying the underlying killing; (8) judge may exclude mitigating evidence only on the basis of lack of relevancy and not on basis of lack of reliability; and (9) trial court improperly excluded evidence in mitigation.
Convictions affirmed, penalty set aside, and remanded for new sentencing hearing.

Berdon, J., filed opinion dissenting in part.
These consolidated criminal appeals from the imposition of the death penalty upon the defendant, Michael B. Ross, raise numerous issues concerning the validity of his capital felony convictions and the validity of the procedures that resulted in death sentences for each of these convictions. [FN1] After a trial to determine guilt, a jury convicted the defendant of six counts of capital felony [FN2] in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54b. [FN3] At a separate sentencing hearing pursuantto General Statutes § 53a-46a, [FN4] the same jury considered further evidence and found an aggravating factor and no mitigating factor with respect to each count. As a result, the trial court rendered a judgment imposing the death sentence on the defendant on each count. The defendant has appealed to this court in accordance with General Statutes §§ 51-199 and 53a-46b. [FN5] We affirm the defendant's conviction of all counts of capital felony. Because of improprieties in the conduct of the sentencing hearing, however, we reverse the judgments imposing the death penalty and remand for new sentencing hearings on all counts.
FN1. We reject the dissenting justice's suggestion that plenary consideration of the defendant's appeal should have been postponed to some indefinite time in the future. No other death penalty case is presently ready to be heard, without disqualifications, en banc or even by five justices of this court. There is no prospect that any such appeal will be ready in this calendar year. It is entirely unclear when any such appeal will be ready. Concern for fairness in the administration of justice requires the prompt reversal of a trial court judgment that improperly imposes the death penalty. It is anomalous for the dissenting justice to take the position that the death penalty is unconstitutionally cruel on its face, in part because of the inevitable delay in its implementation, and simultaneously to urge indefinite extension of the uncertainty and anxiety of a criminal defendant who is presently improperly being held on death row.

* * *

The jury could reasonably have found the following facts. On June 13, 1984, the defendant accosted seventeen year old Wendy B. as she was walking along Route 12 in Lisbon. After a short conversation, he pulled Wendy B. over a stone wall, forcing her to go with him into a wooded area that led to an open field. There he sexually assaulted her, forced her to turn over on her stomach, and then strangled her.

On Thanksgiving Day, 1983, the defendant accosted nineteen year old Robyn S. on the grounds of Uncas on Thames State Hospital in Norwich. He forcefully pulled Robyn S. into a wooded area and ordered her to remove her clothing. He then sexually assaulted her and, after ordering her to turn over on her stomach, strangled her. Before leaving, he covered her body with leaves.

On Easter Sunday, 1984, the defendant picked up fourteen year old April B. and fourteen year old Leslie S., who were hitchhiking to Jewett City on Route 138. Once the girls had entered his car, he drove them easterly on Route 165 and, over their protests, past their intended destination. When April B. tried to force the defendant to stop the car by threatening him with a knife, he disarmed her and continued to transport the girls against their will, through eastern Connecticut, to Beach Pond in Rhode Island. At Beach Pond, he parked his car and bound both girls hand and foot. He then untied April B.'s feet and forced her to walk a short distance from his car, where he assaulted her sexually, turned her over on her stomach and strangled her. Returning to the car, the defendant killed Leslie S. without sexually assaulting her. He then placed the bodies of both girls in his car and drove back to Preston, Connecticut, where he deposited their bodies in a culvert.

At his trial, the defendant did not deny having committed the sexual assaults, the kidnappings and the murders described above. His defense was insanity, a defense that the jury rejected by finding him guilty as charged. Additional facts will be discussed as they become relevant to the issues before us.

The defendant's appeal raises a multitude of issues, which we will address in three main parts. First, we will consider the validity of the defendant's conviction of six counts of capital felony. Second, we will consider the facial constitutionality, under the federal and state constitutions, of imposing the death penalty upon a person who has been found to have committed, in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner; § 53a-46a(h)(4); a capital felony under subsection (5) or subsection (7) of § 53a-54b. Third, we will consider the validity, pursuant to § 53a-46a, of the defendant's sentencing hearing. In light of our remand for a new sentencing hearing because of substantial noncompliance with the statutory requirements of § 53a-46a, we need not review the defendant's death sentences pursuant to § 53a-46b.

* * *

In summary, the defendant's convictions are affirmed in their entirety. The defendant kidnapped and killed four young girls, and sexually assaulted three of them, in a manner that was especially cruel, heinous or depraved. Imposition of the death penalty requires more, however. Even a defendant who has offered no persuasive legal excuse for his felonious conduct is entitled to have a sentencing jury consider extenuating circumstances that may explain his behavior and mitigate his moral culpability and may therefore counsel against the ultimate sanction of death. Because evidentiary rulings by the trial court impaired the defendant's ability to prove the existence of such mitigating factors, a new sentencing hearing must be held.

State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 849 A.2d 648 (2004) (Direct Appeal)

Background: Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court, Judicial District of New London, Ford and Miano, JJ., of multiple counts of capital felony and sentenced to death. Defendant appealed, and the Supreme Court, 230 Conn. 183, 646 A.2d 1318, affirmed convictions but vacated death sentences and remanded for new penalty phase. On remand, the defendant was against sentenced to death, and he appealed.

Holdings: The Supreme Court, Sullivan, C.J., held that:
(1) defendant was not deprived of fair and impartial jury;
(2) consolidation of multiple convictions for capital felony at sentencing phase did not prejudice defendant;
(3) defendant was not entitled to competency examination;
(4) admission at sentencing hearing of State psychiatric expert's general opinion presented during guilt phase of trial did not violate right of confrontation;
(5) Catholic bishop's proposed testimony regarding Catholic church's position on capital punishment and on concept of mercy was not relevant at sentencing;
(6) defendant waived psychiatrist-patient privilege when he raised issue of mental impairment and disclosed videotaped interviews with psychiatrist to State;
(7) State's failure to timely disclose evidence involving out-of-state crimes for which defendant was investigated did not violate Brady;
(8) evidence of mental impairment was not so compelling such that jury could not have reasonably rejected it;
(9) murders were committed in especially cruel, heinous, or depraved manner;
(10) defendant was not deprived of right to unanimous verdict;
(11) jury was not misled by instructions regarding sentences of death or life without possibility of release; and
(12) death sentences were not disproportionate to sentences imposed in similar cases.
Affirmed.

Norcott, J., filed dissenting opinion.

SULLIVAN, C.J.
The defendant, Michael B. Ross, was charged in three cases [FN1] with eight counts of capital felony in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54b. The trial court dismissed two counts for lack of territorial jurisdiction and, after a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of four counts of capital felony in violation of § 53a-54b (5) and two counts of capital felony in violation of § 53a-54b (6). [FN2] State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 188, 194-95, 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1165, 115 S.Ct. 1133, 130 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1995) (Ross II). [FN3] After a separate penalty phase hearing pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 53a-46a, [FN4] he was sentenced to death. The defendant appealed from the judgments to this court. We affirmed the defendant's convictions, but determined that certain evidentiary rulings by the trial court in the penalty phase had impaired the defendant's ability to establish a mitigating factor and, accordingly, we reversed the judgments imposing the death penalty. Id., at 286,. On remand, a second penalty phase hearing was held before a jury, which found an aggravating factor for each capital felony conviction and no mitigating factor. In accordance with the jury's findings, the court, Miano, J., imposed a death sentence on each count. On appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199, [FN6] the defendant raises numerous challenges to the sentences of death. We affirm the judgments imposing the death penalty on each count of capital felony.

FN2. General Statutes § 53a-54b provides in relevant part: "A person is guilty of a capital felony who is convicted of any of the following ... (5) murder by a kidnapper of a kidnapped person during the course of the kidnapping or before such person is able to return or be returned to safety; (6) murder committed in the course of the commission of sexual assault in the first degree ...."

The criminal conduct in this case occurred in 1983 and 1984. Section 53a-54b has been amended several times since 1984 for purposes not relevant to this appeal. For convenience, we cite the current version of the statute although we take note of the fact that prior to the enactment of No. 01-151, § 3, of the 2001 Public Acts, the provision of the statute concerning murder committed in the course of the commission of sexual assault in the first degree had been designated subdivision (7) rather than subdivision (6).

FN4. Because the defendant committed the crimes that were the basis of his convictions in 1983 and 1984; Ross II, supra, 230 Conn. at 191- 92, 646 A.2d 1318; the applicable version of § 53a-46a would normally have been the revision of 1983. In Ross II, supra, at 280-83, 646 A.2d 1318, however, this court concluded that Public Acts 1985, No. 85- 366, § 1(d), first codified at General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 53a-46a (d), applied retroactively to this case. In 1993, the legislature amended § 53a-46a for purposes not relevant to this appeal. See Public Acts 1993, No. 93-306, § 12, currently codified at § 53a-46a (i)(7). In 1995, the legislature amended the statute to include substantive provisions that are not retroactively applicable to this case. See Public Acts 1995, No. 95-19, § 1, currently codified in part at § 53a-46a (g) . For convenience, uniformity and clarity, all references and citations in this opinion to § 53a-46a are to that statute as revised to 1987.

General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 53a-46a provides in relevant part: "(a) A person shall be subjected to the penalty of death for a capital felony only if a hearing is held in accordance with the provisions of this section.
"(b) For the purpose of determining the sentence to be imposed when a defendant is convicted of ... a capital felony, the judge ... who presided
at the trial ... shall conduct a separate hearing to determine the existence of any mitigating factor concerning the defendant's character, background and history, or the nature and circumstances of the crime, including any mitigating factor set forth in subsection (g), and any aggravating factor set forth in subsection (h).... Such hearing shall be conducted (1) before the jury which determined the defendant's guilt, or (2) before a jury impaneled for the purpose of such hearing if (A) the defendant was convicted upon a plea of guilty; (B) the defendant was convicted after a trial before three judges as provided in subsection (b) of section 53a-45; or (C) if the jury which determined the defendant's guilt has been discharged by the court for good cause or, (3) before the court, on motion of the defendant and with the approval of the court and the consent of the state.

"(c) In such hearing the court shall disclose to the defendant or his counsel all material contained in any presentence report which may have been prepared. No presentence information withheld from the defendant shall be considered in determining the existence of any mitigating or aggravating factor. Any information relevant to any mitigating factor may be presented by either the state or the defendant, regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing admission of evidence in trials of criminal matters, but the admissibility of information relevant to any of
the aggravating factors set forth in subsection (h) shall be governed by the rules governing the admission of evidence in such trials. The state and the defendant shall be permitted to rebut any information received at the hearing and shall be given fair opportunity to present argument as to the adequacy of the information to establish the existence of any mitigating or aggravating factor. The burden of establishing any of the factors set forth in subsection (h) shall be on the state. The burden of establishing any mitigating factor shall be on the defendant.

"(d) In determining whether a mitigating factor exists concerning the defendant's character, background or history, or the nature and circumstances of the crime, pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the jury ... shall first determine whether a particular factor concerning the defendant's character, background or history, or the nature and circumstances of the crime, has been established by the evidence, and shall determine further whether that factor is mitigating in nature, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. Mitigating factors are such as do not constitute a defense or excuse for the capital felony of which the defendant has been convicted, but which, in fairness and mercy, may be considered as tending either to extenuate or reduce the degree of his culpability or blame for the offense or to otherwise constitute a basis for a sentence less than death.

"(e) The jury ... shall return a special verdict setting forth its findings as to the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factor.

"(f) If the jury ... finds that one or more of the factors set forth in subsection (h) exist and that no mitigating factor exists, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. If the jury ... finds that none of the factors set forth in subsection (h) exists or that one or more mitigating factors exist, the court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

"(g) The court shall not impose the sentence of death on the defendant if the jury ... finds by a special verdict, as provided in subsection (e), that any mitigating factor exists. The mitigating factors to be considered concerning the defendant shall include, but are not limited to, the following: That at the time of the offense (1) he was under the age of eighteen or (2) his mental capacity was significantly impaired or his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired but not so impaired in either case as to constitute a defense to prosecution or (3) he was under unusual and substantial duress, although not such duress as to constitute a defense to prosecution or (4) he was criminally liable under sections 53a-8, 53a-9 and 53a-10 for the offense, which was committed by another, but his participation in such offense was relatively minor, although not so minor as to constitute a defense to
prosecution or (5) he could not reasonably have foreseen that his conduct in the course of commission of the offense of which he was convicted would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing, death to another person.
"(h) If no mitigating factor is present, the court shall impose the sentence of death on the defendant if the jury ... finds by a special verdict as provided in subsection (e) that ... (4) the defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner ...."

FN5. General Statutes § 51-199(b) provides in relevant part: "The following matters shall be taken directly to the Supreme Court ... (3) an appeal in any criminal action involving a conviction for a capital felony ... (4) review of a sentence of death pursuant to section 53a-46b ...."

FN6. General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 53a-46b provides: "(a) Any sentence of death imposed in accordance with the provisions of section 53a-46a shall be reviewed by the supreme court pursuant to its rules. In addition to its authority to correct errors at trial, the supreme court shall either affirm the sentence of death or vacate said sentence and remand for imposition of a sentence in accordance with subdivision (1) of section 53a-35a.

"(b) The supreme court shall affirm the sentence of death unless it determines that: (1) The sentence was the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; (2) the evidence fails to support the finding of an aggravating circumstance specified in subsection (h) of section 53a-46a; or (3) the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the circumstances of the crime and the character and record of the defendant.

"(c) The sentence review shall be in addition to direct appeal and if taken, the review and appeal shall be consolidated for consideration. The court shall then render its decision on the legal errors claimed and the validity of the sentence."
All references in this opinion to § 53a-46b are to that statute as revised to 1987, a technical change in the statute having been effected by the enactment of Public Acts 1985, No. 85-366, § 2, to reflect a change to § 53a-46a by § 1 of the same public act. See footnote 4 of this opinion.

As set forth in Ross II, supra, 230 Conn. at 191-92, 646 A.2d 1318, the jury at the guilt phase trial reasonably could have found the following facts. "On June 13, 1984, the defendant accosted seventeen year old Wendy B. as she was walking along Route 12 in Lisbon. After a short conversation, he pulled Wendy B. over a stone wall, forcing her to go with him into a wooded area that led to an open field. There he sexually assaulted her, forced her to turn over on her stomach, and then strangled her.
"On Thanksgiving Day, 1983, the defendant accosted nineteen year old Robyn S. on the grounds of Uncas on Thames State Hospital in Norwich. He forcefully pulled Robyn S. into a wooded area and ordered her to remove her clothing. He then sexually assaulted her and, after ordering her to turn over on her stomach, strangled her. Before leaving, he covered her body with leaves.

"On Easter Sunday, 1984, the defendant picked up fourteen year old April B. and fourteen year old Leslie S., who were hitchhiking to Jewett City on Route 138. Once the girls had entered his car, he drove them easterly on Route 165 and, over their protests, past their intended destination. When April B. tried to force the defendant to stop the car by threatening him with a knife, he disarmed her and continued to transport the girls against their will, through eastern Connecticut, to Beach Pond in Rhode Island. At Beach Pond, he parked his car and bound both girls hand and foot. He then untied April B.'s feet and forced her to walk a short distance from his car, where he assaulted her sexually, turned her over on her stomach and strangled her. Returning to the car, the defendant killed Leslie S. without sexually assaulting her. He then placed the bodies of both girls in his car and drove back to Preston, Connecticut, where he deposited their bodies in a culvert." Id.
At the second penalty phase hearing, the state sought to prove as an aggravating factor that the defendant committed all of the offenses in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner within the meaning of § 53a-46a (h)(4). The defendant sought to prove two statutory and fourteen nonstatutory mitigating factors. [FN7] The jury found an aggravating factor and no mitigating factor for each count. Thereafter, the court imposed six sentences of death. This appeal followed.

* * *

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. With respect to the murder of Wendy B., the defendant told police that she had screamed and fought after he grabbed her and that he threatened to hurt her if she did not stop. She complied with his demand and pleaded with him not to hurt her. He then led her into the woods, raped her and told her to turn over onto her stomach. She continued to struggle as he strangled her to death.

Malchik testified that the defendant had told him that his hands had cramped as he strangled both Wendy B. and Robyn S. and that he had had to reapply his grip. [FN65] Both victims were "moving and writhing" as he strangled them and the defendant stated that he had found Robyn S. to be "strong." The defendant also had told police that Robyn S. had been "a hundred percent unwilling" to engage in sex but that he had been able to force her because he was "bigger and stronger" and had intimidated her.

FN65. In a videotaped interview with a journalist after the first penalty phase, which was introduced into evidence at the second penalty phase, the defendant denied having told the police that his fingers had cramped during the strangulations or that he had had to reapply his grip.

With respect to April B. and Leslie S., the defendant stated to the police that he had picked them up while they were hitchhiking. They asked him to drive them to a certain gas station, but when they arrived there, the defendant refused to stop the car. At that point, April B. pulled a steak knife out of her pocket and threatened to stab the defendant if he did not stop. The defendant stated that he yelled at her and nearly drove off the road, at which point she "panicked" and gave him the knife. He then drove to a remote area, parked the car and told both victims to get in the backseat. He tied up Leslie S. with an elastic belt she had been wearing. He then took April B. out of the car. During the incident, April B. was "mouthy" and struggled with the defendant, but Leslie S. urged her "to do exactly everything he wanted [her] to do." He forced April B. to remove her jeans and cut the jeans into strips with the steak knife. He tied her hands and feet with the strips and then returned to Leslie S. and tied her feet. The jury heard evidence that he then placed Leslie S. in the trunk of the car. At that point, he raped April B. and then strangled her to death. The jury heard evidence that the defendant did not tell Leslie S. that he had killed April B. It also saw a videotape in which the defendant told a journalist that he put April B.'s body in the front seat of the car after killing her. He then took Leslie S. out of the car, placed her on the ground and strangled her.

The jury also heard evidence that the defendant's intention was to degrade, to humiliate and to subjugate his victims when he forced them to disrobe and sexually assaulted them and that he derived satisfaction from the act of strangulation. Grayson reported that the defendant had told him, "If I shot them in the head or stabbed them it would've been out of character with the power and degradation.... Also, shooting them would be too quick." The jury also heard evidence that the defendant had acknowledged that all of his victims had suffered and that he had "sadistically brutalized and murdered" them.
We conclude that the jury reasonably could have determined that the cumulative effect of this evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of an aggravating factor as defined by § 53a-46a (h)(4) for each of the six capital felony counts with which the defendant was charged. As we noted in Ross II, supra, 230 Conn. at 262-63, 646 A.2d 1318, "[t]he jury reasonably could have found, for each of the defendant's four victims in the circumstances of these cases, that their manual strangulation by the defendant was an especially cruel way of inflicting death." The jury also could have inferred that the defendant chose that method of killing for that very reason. [FN66] The jury also reasonably could have found that, "[i]n the cases of Wendy B. and Robyn S., the defendant's cruelty was exacerbated when their strangulation was prolonged by the cramping of the defendant's hands, which caused him to stop before resuming the strangulation." Id., at 263, 646 A.2d 1318. Although the jury heard evidence at the second penalty phase that the defendant had denied stopping mid-killing and then reapplying his grip, the jury was not required to credit that evidence.

FN66. The inference that the defendant derived satisfaction from this method of killing would not be inconsistent with the jury's determination that the defendant did not suffer from a significant mental impairment. The fact that the defendant enjoyed the suffering of his victims does not necessarily mean that his ability to refrain from inflicting that suffering was significantly impaired.

Moreover, from the evidence presented at the second penalty phase hearing, the jury reasonably could have inferred that the defendant sexually assaulted all of the victims, including Leslie S. As we stated in Ross II, "the jury reasonably could have inferred that the victims' terror would have been increased by the defendant's sexual assaults upon them." Id. If the jury determined that the defendant had not sexually assaulted Leslie S., it "reasonably could have found that she would have been terrified by sitting in the defendant's car, bound hand and foot, and coming to understand that her best friend April B., was being sexually abused and then killed." Id. Although there was evidence that the defendant had not told Leslie S. that he had killed April B., the jury reasonably could have found that, as she waited, bound hand and foot, in the trunk of the defendant's car and listened to April B.'s struggles and protests, Leslie S. knew the fate of her friend without having been informed of it by the defendant.

Finally, as we did in Ross II, we reject the defendant's claims that his conduct was not "especially heinous, cruel or depraved," as a matter of law, "because his conduct did not go beyond that which is necessarily encompassed by the capital felonies of which he was convicted." Id. On the basis of the evidence presented at the second penalty phase, "the jury reasonably could have found an aggravating factor for each of these capital felony counts [with respect to Wendy B. and Robyn S.] because of the proof of an added element from the other [capital] felony count.... With respect to April B. [and Leslie S., their] sexual assault by the defendant was likewise an aggravating factor above and beyond the kidnapping and the murder that were elements in the capital felony as charged." (Citation omitted.) Id., at 264, 646 A.2d 1318. Even if the jury determined that the defendant had not sexually assaulted Leslie S., it reasonably could have found that "an aggravating factor of special cruelty was the exacerbated psychological anguish inflicted upon her by her own bondage and her fear for the fate of her best friend." Id. Accordingly, we reject this claim.

* * *

"The jury returned a special verdict finding that the state had proved the aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt for both of the murders. Id., at 681-82, 741 A.2d 913. The jury further found that the defendant had proved the existence of an unspecified mitigating factor or factors. Id., at 682, 741 A.2d 913. The trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release. Id." Breton III, supra, 264 Conn. at 429-30, 824 A.2d 778 the defendant "was found guilty of multiple murder capital felony in violation of § 53a-54b (8) [now (7) ] for the deaths of his former wife and his son. Following the penalty phase hearing before a three judge panel, the defendant was sentenced to death. The panel found that the state had proved its aggravating factor, that the murders were committed in an especially cruel manner. See General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 53a-46a (h)(4). This finding was based on evidence demonstrating that the defendant had engaged in a prolonged and violent assault on his former wife, during which he beat her severely and stabbed her multiple times, ignoring her anguished cries that he was hurting her and begging for help. The defendant then turned on his son, chased him down as he attempted to escape and repeatedly stabbed him.

"The defendant claimed the two statutory mitigating factors of significant impairment of his mental capacity and significant impairment of his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law as well as twenty-five nonstatutory mitigating factors. [FN100] ... [T]he panel found that the defendant had proved the factual underpinnings of four nonstatutory mitigating factors. They were: (1) that the defendant was neglected, abandoned and the product of an abusive family unit during his childhood; (2) that the defendant had been a model prisoner at all times since his incarceration for the murders; (3) that he dropped out of school at age sixteen; and (4) that he was a good employee and a productive worker. The panel further found, however, that none of the nonstatutory mitigating factors, alone or in combination, constituted a mitigating factor considering all of the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the panel sentenced the defendant to death." Breton III, supra, 264 Conn. at 428, 824 A.2d 778 .

FN100. "The defendant claimed as nonstatutory mitigating factors that: (1) at the time of the offense, his mental capacity was impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a statutory mitigating factor; (2) at the time of the offense, his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a statutory mitigating factor; (3) at the time of the offense, he was suffering from an extreme emotional disturbance; (4) at the time of the offense, his mental capacity was significantly impaired, and he suffered from an extreme emotional disturbance that constituted a defense to the prosecution, which, although not presented in the guilt phase, the court could consider as a nonstatutory mitigating factor; (5) he was under the influence of alcohol and prescription medication at the time of the offense; (6) his mother gave him up to live at an orphanage as well as other homes because he was in the way and she could not or would not properly care for him; (7) his mother herself was the product of a broken home, was abandoned by her own parents, lived in an orphanage and was ill-prepared to raise him properly; (8) upon his return from the orphanage it was readily apparent that the defendant had suffered severe and traumatic abuse at the orphanage; (9) he was significantly and traumatically affected by his abandonment by his parents; (10) he was raised in a pathological, alcoholic and abusive family unit; (11) his mother was an alcoholic and she lacked the necessary mothering skills to raise her son properly; (12) his father almost never worked or supported his family and drank excessively on a daily basis; (13) the defendant was subjected to verbal, physical and emotional abuse at the hands of both of his parents; (14) he was the product of a broken home that lacked the necessary love, affection, support and nurturing that is critical to proper social and childhood development; (15) his formal education ended before completion of the eighth grade; (16) despite his low level of education, he has a long history of steady employment and has led a productive life; (17) as a teenager, he worked and contributed to the household; (18) he worked hard to support his family for nineteen years; (19) he has been a model prisoner; (20) mercy; (21) considerations of fairness and mercy constitute a basis for a sentence of life without the possibility of release; (22) there exists a factor concerning the facts and circumstances of the case that has not been specifically mentioned in this list that the court can consider in fairness and mercy as constituting a basis for imposing on him a sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of release rather than sentencing him to death; (23) there exists a factor in his character, history and/or background that has not been specifically mentioned in this list that the court can consider in fairness and mercy as constituting a basis for a sentence of life without the possibility of release; (24) any of the previously listed factors taken either individually or in combination with any other factor, although not an excuse for the offense, in fairness or mercy provides a reason for a sentence of life without the possibility of release; and (25) death is not the appropriate sentence for the defendant." Breton III, supra, 264 Conn. at 335-36 n. 7, 824 A.2d 778.

* * *

"On the basis of this analysis, of our scrupulous examination of all of the material presented to us regarding the imposition of the death penalty in the present case, and of our careful review of the material presented to us regarding the imposition of the sentences in the other [twenty-three] similar cases, [FN102] we conclude that the death sentence is not 'excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the circumstances of the crime and the character and record of the defendant.' General Statutes § 53a-46b (b)(3). There is nothing freakish, arbitrary, wanton or aberrational about the sentence in this case. There is no pattern or trend evident in similar cases with respect to which this sentence is inconsistent. This case is not an outlier. The various sentencers' evaluations of similar aggravants and claimed mitigants in the other similar cases is reasonably consistent with the [panel's] evaluation of the aggravants and claimed mitigants in this case. The death sentence in this case is reasonably consistent with the sentences of death imposed in the [three cases] in which that sentence was imposed, considering the aggravants found and the mitigants claimed. The death sentence in this case is reasonably consistent with the sentences of life imprisonment in the [twenty] similar cases in which that sentence was imposed, considering the aggravants found and the mitigants claimed; there is nothing freakish, aberrational or arbitrary in [the jury's] having imposed the death penalty in this case and [the sentencers'] having declined to do so in the other [twenty] cases. The sentence in this case is reasonably consistent with the sentences imposed in the pool of similar cases." State v. Webb, supra, 238 Conn. at 550-51, 680 A.2d 147.

FN102. The pool of similar cases is comprised of twenty-one docketed cases. As we have noted, however, Diaz-Marrero and Ortiz each count as two cases for purposes of proportionality review.

The judgments are affirmed.

In this opinion VERTEFEUILLE, LAVERY, FOTI and DRANGINIS, Js. concurred.

NORCOTT, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I maintain my position that the death penalty has no place in the jurisprudence of the state of Connecticut.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Michael B. ROSS, by his next friend, Donna Dunham, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Theresa LANTZ, Commissioner of Corrections, et al., Respondents-Appellees.

PER CURIAM.
Michael B. Ross is scheduled to be executed by the State of Connecticut at 2:01 a.m. on Friday, May 13, 2005, having declined to pursue further any available state or federal avenues of collateral review of his convictions or death sentences. Mr. Ross's sister, Donna Dunham, purporting to be his "next friend," seeks a stay of Mr. Ross's execution. We summarize briefly the procedural history of this matter.

Michael Ross was sentenced to death in 1987 after being convicted of six counts of capital felony. State v. Ross, 237 Conn. 332, 334, 677 A.2d 433 (1996). Subsequent legal proceedings included the overturning of all six separate death sentences along with a remand for a new sentencing hearing; an attempt by Ross, rejected by the trial court, to stipulate to the death penalty by agreement with the state; and the re-imposition of the death penalty after a second penalty hearing. State v. Ross, 272 Conn. 577, 579-80, 863 A.2d 654 (2005). After these new death sentences were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in 2004, State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392, 849 A.2d 648 (2004), Ross notified the state Superior Court in September 2004 that he would not pursue further appeals and requested that an execution date be set. Conn. Sup. Court Apr. 22, 2005 Mem. of Decision re: Competency and Voluntariness at 2.

In January of this year, in two separate lawsuits, two persons attempted to assert "next friend" status, which would permit them to bring either a section 1983 action or a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on Ross's behalf despite his oft-repeated statements of unwillingness to do so himself. The section 1983 action, brought by Ross's father, Dan Ross, was denied by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Droney, J.) after a January 7, 2005 hearing. Ross v. Rell, No. Civ. A 3:04 cv 2186C, 2005 WL 61494, (D.Conn. Jan.10, 2005). That decision was not appealed to us.

Subsequently, in response to a similar petition filed in the same court by Gerard A. Smyth, Chief of the Connecticut Office of the Public Defender, the district court (Chatigny, J.) granted a stay of execution. See Ross v. Lantz, No. 05 CV 116(RNC), 2005 WL 162479, at *4, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 908, at *13 (D.Conn. Jan.25, 2005). We declined to vacate the stay, but we dismissed the appeal to us in order to permit the district court to establish a factual record upon which Smyth's standing as "next friend" could be reviewed. Ross v. Lantz, 396 F.3d 512, 515 (2d Cir.2005). The Supreme Court, however, in a 5-4 vote, promptly vacated the stay. Lantz v. Ross, --- U.S. ----, 125 S.Ct. 1117, 160 L.Ed.2d 1091 (2005).

Dan Ross then sought to bring an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 against various Connecticut officials asserting a constitutional right not to be deprived by the state of his association with his son and alleging that the state's prison conditions had made his son incompetent to waive further proceedings. The court (Chatigny, J.) again issued a restraining order prohibiting Michael Ross's execution. Ross v. Rell, No. 3:05-CV-130(PCD), 2005 WL 181883, at *2, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1004, at *4 (D.Conn. Jan.26, 2005). This time we vacated the order. Ross v. Rell, 398 F.3d 203, 205 (2d. Although we noted that certain additional material submitted to us raised "troubling questions," we thought ourselves compelled to conclude: "[T]he implications of the Supreme Court's one-sentence order [vacating the stay] in Lantz v. Ross leave little room to argue to this Court in this appeal that Michael Ross is incompetent for these purposes." Id.
Shortly before the execution was to be carried out on January 29, 2005, it was postponed at the request of Ross's attorney, and with the agreement of Ross and the state. Ross's attorney, who had previously been assisting Ross in arguing that he was competent and entitled to waive further appeals, was apparently concerned that a potential conflict of interest might prevent him from continuing to advocate that position effectively. Conn. Sup. Court Apr. 22, 2005 Mem. of Decision re: Competency and Voluntariness at 3-4; State v. Ross, ____ Conn. ----, Nos. SC 17422, 17433 (May 9, 2005), slip op. at 9-10. Soon thereafter, Ross filed a motion requesting that the Superior Court reopen its competency hearing. On February 10, 2005, to assuage the concerns of Ross's attorney about a potential conflict of interest, the Superior Court appointed Thomas J. Groark, Jr., Esq., as special counsel to investigate and present evidence that Ross was in fact not competent to waive his appeals. Conn. Sup. Court Apr. 22, 2005 Mem. of Decision re: Competency and Voluntariness at 4. After after six additional days of adversary evidentiary hearings, the Superior Court concluded in a Memorandum of Decision issued April 22, 2005, that Ross's decision not to seek further appeals "is both competent and voluntary." Id. at 21.

The special counsel appealed that ruling, and on May 9, 2005, the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Superior Court's determination. State v. Ross, ____ Conn. ----, Nos. SC 17422, 17433 (May 9, 2005). We observe that the special counsel conceded on appeal that "death row syndrome," which had earlier been urged in both the District Court and this Court as a basis for questioning Ross's competence, was not part of his case to the Superior Court. May 5, 2005 Transcript at 23. The special counsel has not appealed or sought collateral relief from the state Supreme Court's affirmance.
While the special counsel was pursuing his appeal, the petitioner in this case, Donna Dunham, filed her petition in Connecticut Superior Court. Dunham also seeks to proceed as "next friend" of Ross. May 6, 2005 Dunham Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 5. The Superior Court denied that petition and the Supreme Court dismissed her related writ of error on May 11, 2005. Ross v. Lantz, No. SC 17432 (May 11, 2005) (order). On May 12, the district court denied Dunham's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the final decision of the state Supreme Court. Ms. Dunham now seeks a stay of execution to allow her to appeal.

"It is well established ... that before a federal court can consider the merits of a legal claim, the person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court must establish the requisite standing to sue." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 154, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990). For the federal courts to have jurisdiction over this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, then, Donna Dunham, purporting to be, in legal parlance, petitioner Ross's "next friend," must establish that she is legally that, and therefore that she has standing to bring the petition on his behalf.

According to the Supreme Court, speaking in Whitmore,
Decisions applying the habeas corpus statute have adhered to at least two firmly rooted prerequisites for "next friend" standing. First, a "next friend" must provide an adequate explanation--such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability--why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action. Second, the "next friend" must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate, and it has been further suggested that a "next friend" must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest.
Id. at 163-64 (citation omitted). "The burden is on the 'next friend' clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court." Id. at 164.

Having carefully reviewed the extensive proceedings that have taken place in Connecticut state courts relating to Michael Ross's "competence," the "voluntary" nature of his waiver of further proceedings, and related issues since our decision in Rell, we are firmly convinced that Ms. Dunham has no room to argue that Michael Ross is incompetent or otherwise disabled for these purposes. The "prerequisite for 'next friend' standing is not satisfied where an evidentiary hearing shows that the defendant has given a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to proceed, and his access to court is otherwise unimpeded." Id. at 165. Ms. Dunham, like Dan Ross before her, has not carried her burden by "provid[ing] an adequate explanation--such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability--why [Ross] cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action."

The Superior Court concluded after the most recent state competency hearings that "Michael Ross'[s] decision to waive his right to further postconviction relief is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary." Conn. Sup. Court Apr. 22, 2005 Mem. of Decision re: Competency and Voluntariness at 21. The district court in the proceeding now before us, deciding whether Ms. Dunham can represent Michael Ross as his next friend, reviewed the evidence and, combined with its own observations of Michael Ross made in the January 7, 2005, district court proceedings, concluded that Michael Ross:
has made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to bring further post-conviction legal action, one which was uncoerced and made in full understanding of the significance and consequences of that decision.
Dunham v. Lantz, Civ. No. 3:05 CV 758(CFD), slip op. at 7 (D.Conn, May 12, 2005). This and the state court factual findings foreclose the possibility of next friend standing for Dunham in this case. [FN*]

The record demonstrates that in this Court and elsewhere, the rights of Michael Ross have been afforded extensive due process protections irrespective of whether he has sought or even affirmatively resisted such efforts. And, as the state continues to concede, Ross can, at any moment prior to his execution, reverse course and invoke his right to seek further proceedings to overturn his conviction or death sentence.

We conclude that Ms. Dunham has not met her burden to establish that she has standing to act in these proceedings as Mr. Ross's next friend. We note in that regard that although she could not in fact seek to bring this habeas petition until the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled, she and her extraordinarily capable counsel have known for months that such a proceeding was likely, have had access to the transcripts of the April hearings before Judge Clifford for some days, and therefore had a sufficient opportunity to prepare for submitting the necessary evidence if it existed.

Because we think that Ms. Dunham has not demonstrated that the issue with respect to her standing as next friend is "debatable among jurists of reason," Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), the motion for a stay is DENIED.

FN* We do not imply any judgment on our part with respect to the correctness of the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court of Connecticut addressing "voluntariness," "competence" and related issues. See State v. Ross, ____ Conn. ----, Nos. SC 17422, 17433 (May 9, 2005).